So, plenty of kerfuffle over the Baptist congregation that kicked out members who voted for John Kerry (the story is a bit more complex than that, but it's a fair assessment). I've seen the story in a number of places, most recently at SEB.

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. - Some in Pastor Chan Chandler's flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP. Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who didn't support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town, about 120 miles west of Charlotte.

[...] The station also reported that 40 others in the 400-member congregation resigned in protest after Monday's vote.

During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said former member Lorene Sutton. Some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October, Morris said.

A few thoughts (as gelled from commenting there):

1. I strongly suspect that the cries of outrage (and support) would be somewhat different if the pastor had kicked out people who voted GOP/Bush. I'll try to examine it from a non-partisan standpoint.

   Similarly, if it were a matter of a pastor kicking out congregants who were notorious whorers and drunkards, or who were KKK members, or who were running a child pr0n ring, I think it wouldn't be making the AP newswire, even if the issues are are (as I discuss below) fundamentally the same.

2. I think this it is, ultimately, self-defeating for any congregation to kick out dissenters, except in the most extreme cases. And I wince at it being done based on partisan politics, though ...

3. I don't know what the IRS code says, specifically, but generally speaking non-profits endanger their tax-exempt status if they advocate particular candidates (or, presumably, if they advocate against particular candidates). But ...

4. That said, how can you possibly divorce religion and politics, at least from this standpoint of voting? If one's religion affects one's moral code (presumably), then it affects how one interacts with the rest of humanity -- from a Christian perspective, the "two greatest commandments" involve relationship with God and relationship with others (the Golden Rule). Politics, in terms of establishing and regulating society, is a formal expression of that second part.

   If that's the case, then one's moral beliefs must inform one's political vote. This gets beyond the "values" voting idea. How one believes about abortion, the death penalty, war, civil rights, care for the poor, homosexuality, adultery, tolerance, etc., all may (and probably should) impact how one votes.

   If I think, for example, that abortion (to take just one prominent example) is the one, single, defining moral issue of our time, then it's likely a litmus test for how one votes. Indeed, if you think that abortion represents the wholesale slaughter of babies, it must be a litmus test for one's vote.

   If that's the case, then how can one purport to be a moral teacher (as most churches do) without addressing such matters? And, as a practical matter, is there a significant difference between saying, "Abortion is a horrific evil, and we must act in our private and public lives to end it," and saying, "You need to get out there and vote against baby-killers," and "Candidate X supports abortion, so all good parishioners should vote against Candidate X, or else they're not good parishioners"? (Again, fill in "war" or the hot button issue of your choice.)

   The call to political action by churches is often controversial (and, usually, the "controversy" varies based on what one believes about the particular call), but it's, frankly, necessary. What the proper line is, from either a religious or legal standpoint, I don't know.

5. Were I a member of that congregation, I would resign. I would resign regardless of my vote in November. But just as I believe in an individual having a right of association -- to choose what church to belong to -- I also believe that applies to churches themselves, and if a church wants to kick out people for voting a particular way, or for having blue eyes, or whatever, that is their right (and best it be out in the open that they feel that way).

   Being an Episcopalian, I tend to err on the side of the Big Tent, and I note that, on the WWJD test, Christ spent a lot more time bringing people in than shutting people out. But he did condemn the unrepentant hypocrites, and he did tell people that he was there to divide, not necessarily to unite.

6. Should the church lose its tax-exempt status? I'm not a tax lawyer (nor do I have any interest of playing one on TV), but it strikes me that it's an awfully fuzzy line, especially when dealing with the First Amendment part of this. If I had to draw that line where I feel is proper, it would be in favor of the church in this case (vs. a case where a church was actively campaigning for someone with signs and get-out-the-vote-for-Candidate-X drives).

I think it's gauche, at the very least, and not the sort of environment I'd care to congregate in (so to speak), but I can see where they (or other churches that might argue similar course for their own reasons) are coming from, whether or not I agree with where they are going.

Filed under :: Elections 2004 :: Religion :: ZT & PC
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (5) · Pings (0) · TR/G

In the aftermath of Election 2004, as endless pundits and pols consider why the Dems lost -- especially against a candidate that they thought should be easy pickings -- the question that matters keep coming back to is, What next?

Did the Dems lose because they were perceived as too extreme to the "left," too far out of the "mainstream?"

And, if so, then what's the right answer? Try to appeal more to the center, and so offend those on the left, and possibly compromise key principles held by many in the "center" of the Democratic party? Or become stronger in those principles, possibly shift even further left, appeal to the "true believer" base, but possibly further alienate those in the center?

That seems to be coming to a head in the abortion issue, as an anti-abortion Democrat has said he's vying for the DNC chairmanship, and others are dead set against the prospect.

The problem is, are principles any good if you can't get elected to enact them? If the American public is uncomfortable enough with the current state of abortion law in this country to reject those who support it in favor of those who might likely restrict it further, is it better to compromise and keep half a loaf rather than face the real risk of losing it all? Is a victory "in principle" any comfort when it means that the other side can write the laws (and appoint the judges)?

On the other hand, what shall it profit a man to gain the world at the price of his soul? If abortion rights are a keystone of what it means to be a Democrat, is compromise on such a principle possible without compromise on any number of other principles, without putting "winning" over doing what's "right."

It's analogous to the question of human rights in international relations and trade. If the only people hurt by the US declaring it won't trade with Country X because they're run by evil and sadistic tyrants are workers in America because other nations will continue to trade with them, that may be principled but it may also be counter-productive. Similarly, if the only people hurt by the Dems taking an absolutist approach to abortion rights are Democratic candidates (and, ultimately, the very people the principle seeks to protect, when those who would restrict abortion rights even further end up winning), what kind of "moral victory" are we talking about?

I would rather not see further restrictions on abortions in the US, not because I'm a gleeful supporter of the practice, but because I'm not sanguine about American politics being able to maintain anything other than an all or nothing approach to it, and I'd rather appeal to conscience than the police to deal with it.

All that begs the issue of where the American electorate, as a whole, actually is (and is goin), and whether the 2004 election was a matter of principles, personality preferences, or better fear-mongering by the GOP than the Dems. Is the populace generally shifting "right," and, if so, at what point will the Dems have to either shift with them or give up the game to the Republicans? Or were abortion matters secondary to other factors in the election, and are the Dems giving ground where they don't need to?

I don't have any easy answers here. I just mistrust any controversial issue being declared the sine qua non of a political party ... just as I mistrust the idea of too easily abandoning principles just for the sake of winning. I suspect compromise is the only viable alternative, but that, too, is an awfully slippery slope.

Filed under :: Elections 2004 :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (2) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Uh, guys? It's time to take down the election signs from your property. Nobody cares any more who you voted for, and if you think you're being defiant or triumphant (depending on whether they lost or won) by leaving up that sign for whomever, you're not.

Ditto for bumper stickers. Those are a bit more difficult to remove (which is why I eschew them -- next time out, try putting them on some flexible magnetic backing you can get from the craft store), but remove them you must, and soon. I mean, would you be particularly impressed by someone with a "GORE 2000" or "DOLE '96!" bumper sticker on their vehicle? Of course not. All you're doing now is thumbing your nose at other people, not standing for a cause, and that's unseemly and uncivil.

Not that anyone should stop fighting the good fight. But the election is over. There are plenty of other causes, campaigns, and signs you can subscribe to in pursuit of your political goals. Do so. Don't rest on your laurels or slump in your sackcloth. Move on.

Filed under :: Elections 2004
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (3) · Pings (0) · TR/G

I hope.

(via J-Walk)

Filed under :: Elections 2004
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (1) · TR/G

That's my Mom's reaction to the sudden dearth of campaign ads.

Here, by the by, is yet another map of the electoral vote, this one with states the roughly proportionate size to their EV contribution. Again, makes things look a lot closer ...

(map via Stan)

Filed under :: Elections 2004
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (1) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Some interesting stats on the Election Season, via the NYT. A few fun excerpts:

The money race was fueled by changes in the campaign financing law that allowed individuals to contribute as much as $2,000 per candidate, up from $1,000. And it helped make one sector of the media very rich - local TV stations. According to TNSMI/CMAG, which tracks television ad spending, from March 3 to Oct. 28, about $575 million was spent on presidential TV ads. That's the equivalent of more than $2 million spent for each of the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

While the increases in individual contributions were supposed to help President Bush, Senator John Kerry and his Democratic allies outspent the president and his Republican allies in each of the five big battleground states (Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). These five states accounted for more than half of the money spent by both parties and their allies for TV ad time (about $380 million of the $575 million spent).

[...] But a true campaign still wouldn't be real without a few retail stops, and the battleground states found themselves deluged by the repeated visits of the candidates and their surrogates. For much of the year, some critical states shed their flyover-state obscurity. Since March, Mr. Bush visited six states more than 10 times: Pennsylvania (23), Ohio (20), Florida (19), Wisconsin (14), Iowa (13) and Michigan (11).

During the same period, Mr. Kerry visited seven states more than 10 times: Ohio (29), Pennsylvania (24), Florida (23), Wisconsin (17), California (12), Iowa (11) and Missouri (10).

(via RantingProfs)

Filed under :: Elections 2004
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (2) · Pings (0) · TR/G

In conjunction with Our Voting Adventure the other day, Kitten and I had a long discussion of political signs, and I trained her to keep an eye out for them. "I see one all blue and red and white!" The ones that were the most visible to her -- large lettering, simple and clean design, actually probably the most attractive ones out there, were for Pete Coors. I appreciate a good design. The Salazar signs were pretty ugly, by contrast, single color and blocky and messy.

Of course, Salazar won and Coors lost. My aesthetic sense continues to bat a thousand.

As part of the discussion, I noted that one of the presidential candidate signs had a "K."

"Like Katherine?" she asked, catching on.

"Yup. Only it's 'K' for 'Kerry.'"

"That's a boy's name." She must know one. In my day, it was (phonetically, at least) a unisex name. One of my first girlfriends was named Kari. Hmmm. Wonder if that hurt the Dems.

Anyway, driving home yesterday, she brought up the "what was that word, ''lection?'"

"Uh-huh."

"Pres'dent Bush won the 'lection."

I have no idea who taught her the name. Though she may have picked it up as I was listening to the radio and NPR's sonorous post mortem. Like a sponge, that girl. "Yup."

"Does that mean we get to keep him?"

Until you're 8 years old, kid. Which is, upon reflection, mildly appalling.

Filed under :: Elections 2004 :: Parenting
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

While the electoral college system encourages a binary blue/red split, this map (click on it) gives a bit more, ah, nuanced approach, letting the color tones within each state reflect the balance of popular vote, not electoral.

Yes, there are broad patterns -- a more red-violet in the south and Midwest, pretty much red through the northern mountain states, more blue and purple along the coast -- but it makes things a lot more clearly muddled, too, if that makes sense. If only there weren't a typo up in the date, it would be perfect. If nothing else, it shows that even if you think the Other Side is nothing but a flock of whackos, there's plenty of Your Side hanging out there, too -- unless you live in Utah, or Massachusetts.

(via BoingBoing)

UPDATE: It occurs to me that this map demonstrates one of the biggest weaknesses/strengths of the electoral college system. On the one hand, it overemphasizes the size of victories, lending a certain added air of legitimacy to the winner, usually a good thing. On the other hand, it overemphasizes the size of victories, making the voting seem much more divisive than it may actually be.

Filed under :: Elections 2004
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (6) · Pings (0) · TR/G

I'm going to stop nattering about this Real Soon Now, I promise, but a friend passed this on to me:

The talk outside the school where I took my daughter this morning, a bastion of Kerry/Edwards supporters, was mostly bewilderment about where people in urban areas -- who overwhelmingly supported Kerry -- can go politically now. Here in the bubble of Seattle, the outlook was voiced by one father: "It's like we're an island now, cut off from the rest of the country. And we just have to go it on our own now."

Unfortunately, I think that's the problem. Urban liberals have been writing off their rural counterparts for too long. The larger the gap grows and festers, the more isolated they're doomed to become. Outreach, not withdrawal, is what is needed.

If progressives are serious about making a real effort at rebuilding their political machinery from the ground up, they need to start by going back to their rural roots. And it can't just be lip service.

While much of the rest of the post is more than a scosh conspiratorial, I definitely agree with this conclusion. For whatever reason, those Red State and Red County folks voted for Bush. Arguing over whether they should have or not is meaningless. Arguing over whether they're all slack-jawed yokels tricked by beads and trinkets, or gun-nuts shilled by Karl Rove into voting to protect their guns from the gummint, or Bible-thumping retards who are deluded by their religious views, or just plain The Enemy, is not only meaningless, it's counter-productive.

They are Americans, and they vote. You can try to deny them. You can try to despise them. But if the Dems really want to take the White House (or majorities in either chamber of Congress) back, decisively, they will actually have to reach out to them, make friends of them, convince them that they, the Dems, can best represent their needs and ideals.

Otherwise, those blue islands will only get smaller, and smaller, and smaller ...

Filed under :: Elections 2004
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Okay, now for some expanded, yet still uninformed, speculation.

Why did Bush beat Kerry? And what does that mean in four years? Four big reasons seemed to be the focus in exit polling and general chatter I heard:

1. The War on Terror: It's probably simplistic to say that people just voted their fears, or that those same fears were fanned solely by the GOP in order to win the vote. 9-11 was, after all, just three years ago, and we've seen other al-Qa'eda (attributed) attacks since then, elsewhere, so a certain degree of concern over world terror is justified. And, for whatever reason, we've not had another attack on US soil, so there's a certain credit given to Bush. And, beyond that, there was the sense that Bush was willing to send in the Marines, while Kerry would call INTERPOL.

   So, then -- what happens in four years?

   If there hasn't been a further Big Attack on US Soil by then, I think people will be (perhaps irrationally) willing to move on. The situation will seem to be handled and under control. Beyond which, the person to whom folks looked in trust (Bush) will be leaving the scene, and even his endorsement won't ring quite the same way.

   If there is another big attack, that might not be to the GOP's benefit, either. Sure, there will be finger-pointing, but it will be an attack on Dubya's watch (the second, depending on how you count 'em), and folks might decide a different approach, or a different protector, is called for.

   In other words, the WoT will not be nearly the GOP vote-getter in 2008 that it was in 2004. Heck, probably not in 2006, either.

   (This, as well as the rest, assumes the Dems run a competent candidate. 'Nuff said.)

2. The War in Iraq: There was a lot of anger about Iraq, and, as even more than Bush supporter has noted, the President has not yet sold the American people on the war, just on the need to conclude it well. They trusted Bush to do this more than they trusted Kerry, who was expected (again, with some justification) to cut and run.

   If things are still dicey in Iraq in four years, though, the GOP will be in serious trouble. Heck, make it two years, at the mid-term elections. And "dicey" in this case means ongoing major insurgency troubles regardless of whether US troops are there. At that point, the question of whether we should have gone in will be moot -- it will be what we did once we were there, and the fault will lie fully on Bush, and, by extension, the GOP. (The Dems may, in the long run, be thankful that they and Kerry didn't get stuck with this.)

   If Iraq is going well in '06 or '08, it will bolster the GOP to some degree (especially if the Dems nominate a major war opponent). It will stand as proof that the Republicans are serious and effective in foreign policy. But it will not be nearly the electoral factor that it was this time around (foreign policy rarely drives elections -- just as George Bush in 2000).

3. The Economy: Just as Clinton benefited from a bubble that wasn't primarily his doing, Bush suffered from the bursting thereof which, along with other factors, led to a recession. While not as effective in doing something about it as might be desired (though, in reality, the tax cuts probably did help spur the recovery), he managed to duck most of the responsibility and fallout -- largely by depending on the previous two factors to cover for it. After all, you expect hardship in wartime, right?

   But if the recovery is too sickly, or too brief, the GOP will reap the punishment in '06 and '08. Indeed, they may have done Dems a favor this year by winning, if things go south again in the economy.

   If, on the other hand, the recovery is strong and lasting, the GOP will benefit. But, then, so will everyone else, right? So it's not exactly something anyone would want to root against.

4. The Culture War: As noted previously, there's speculation that the populace is just plain ol' getting more "conservative," and this helped Bush this year (to get out the vote, if nothing else).

   The question remains, is this just a hiccup? A last hurrah? Or perhaps it's just folks holding up their hands for a moment to say "whoa" and catch their breath. Or maybe the pendulum really is swinging back.

   What comes from that, though, is open to question. If the GOP pushes this too hard, then moderates who aren't comfortable with gay marriage but who certainly don't want to see Uncle Fred tossed in the clink because he lives with a "friend" are liable to defect in '08, or even '06. Folks who don't like screwing around with the US Constitution are unlikely to go along with that sort of thing, either. And if the general population doesn't want to see old traditions and mores tossed out by activist judges and left-wing loonies, they're probably going to not be happy to see new rights that affect their family and friends tossed out (or not protected) by activist judges and right-wing loonies.

   The general shift of the population back to the "right" may not be real or persistent. But if it is, it's probably the most serious, long-term threat to the Dems and their constituency groups of any of these, since, after all, it would represent the will of the majority. I don't think it's a card the GOP can play too overtly, or too often, though; the populace may want to pull back a little to the right, but they don't want to be pulled that direction too far, too fast, any more than they want to be pulled to the left too far or too fast. If the Dems are targeted and effective in their protestations and opposition, they will do a lot better than if they just reflexively resist anything that the GOP puts forward.

   To that end, the biggest concern is probably that Bush & Co. will nominate all sorts of "awful" judges. The Dems have to be careful how they react here, and pick their battles carefully. Too much obstructionism makes them out as being solely partisan in their actions, and gives the GOP ammo for the next election. It's dangerous to let bad judicial nominations through, but it may be necessary to let sub-optimal ones by in order to effectively stop the really bad ones.

There are a number of other factors that could come into play over the next four years.

• The way the Bush Administration comports itself could play a small part of future electoral decisions -- bullying, or arrogance, or continued refusal to let the buck stop there will not, in and of itself, affect an election, but it will leave a taint, a bad taste in the public's mouth that could tip a balance.

• It's unlikely the environment will play a substantially greater part in folks' decisions -- those swayed by it already took that into account this time around -- unless things get much more obviously worse in the next four years, the GOP is too overtly destructive of environmental laws, or there's some sort of disaster that can be laid at their feet. But, again, for most voters the environment is a background issue, something that flavors the election decision, not something that decides it.

• A lot of folks are worried about civil liberties (on the Left and on the Right), but it seems unlikely that anything short of a major homeland security effort that would have much of the GOP in Congress in rebellion would actually make it a significant factor over the next few elections. Things will get a bit worse, but I don't expect to see bar codes on everyone's forehead and Orwellian televiewers in everyone's home by 2008.

• Other foreign policy hot-spots could play a role. Iran and North Korea are obviously trouble spots. China is probably smart enough not to overplay its hand against the US just yet, but miscalculations could occur. Beyond Iraq and the WoT, if there are significant foreign policy blunders by Bush, it might have a small effect (though, again, foreign policy rarely decides elections.

• A scandal of some sort is possible to tip the scales -- there are any number of skeletons rattling around in the White House closets. The problem is, I think folks are getting tired of the scandal shtick, largely because it's been used indiscriminately as a club by both parties, rarely with the significance matching the sound and fury that accompanied it. It's all too likely, though, that a major scandal in the Bush administration wouldn't seriously hurt the GOP in '06 or '08, both because of their control of Congress (which would be expected to take the lead in any sort of inquiry) and because the population will attribute it more to being a political attack than a substantive indictment, all things being equal.

Bottom line, some of the bigger items that Bush was able to leverage this time around -- Iraq, and the War on Terror -- are unlikely to be significant benefits in 2008, but hold the risk of being significant dangers (assuming the Dems don't self-destruct). The economy could affect the next presidential election in either direction, depending on where it is as of July 2008 (to that end, it might be best of the Dems to not win back Congress in '06). The culture war aspect may be the biggest problem for the Dems and the Left to overcome, assuming it's real, but that also assumes that GOP arrogance doesn't create a backlash toward the center.

Of course, there may be a completely new factor in the next two years, and four, that nobody can predict now. After all, nobody in 2000 would have predicted either of the first two as major election-deciders.

It should be an interesting (cue Chinese proverb) next few months, seeing which way things are starting to go.

UPDATE: Doyce has his election post mortem. Good stuff -- and, if what he says is true, probably not his "last political post for awhile," regardless of the title.

Filed under :: Elections 2004 :: Elections 2008 :: Gay Stuff :: Geopolitical Brouhaha
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (30) · Pings (2) · TR/G