November 14, 2008
Even Democrats Can’t Win a Secular American Majority
By Mike “gamecock” DeVine, Charlotte Law and Civil Rights Examiner for Examiner.com
_______________________________________________________________________
-The reason: No “secular American majority” exists. The vast majority of Americans still believe in God.
In his brilliant A Republican Party for a Secular America, David Sage correctly cites the 2008 rejection of the GOP “in its current form” by the American people at the ballot box, but then attributes that rejection to Republican mimicking of Reagan’s social conservative agenda, while agreeing that “conservatism” sells.
David’s sagacity measures 67% on the Gamecock meter. Let me work backwards.
Given Americans’ aversion to granting three consecutive terms to the same party in the White House and their penchant for throwing out the party in said House during economic hard times, even unabashed and unapologetic marketing of conservatism might not have sold this year.
We will never know, because we didn’t even try to sell conservatism before Palin was chosen. And when McCain said me too to President Bush and Senator Obama to the very non-conservative Paulson panic prevention plan, conservative sales went down the drain.
But what of this supposed tipping point aversion to appeals to Judeo-Christian values and the current form of the Party of Lincoln?
The Democratic Party regained majority control of Congress mainly due to Rahm Emmanuel’s “blue dawg” democrat strategy that recruited pro-life and family values Democrats all over the county, not just in Dixie. Barack Obama campaigned as a Christian, opposed gay marriage, and even insisted that the party platform be changed for the first time since 1972 to acknowledge respect for pro-lifers. (I know: Rev. Wright, Minister Farrakhan and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, but you see my point.)
Moreover, this year, California one of the most liberal states in the country, along with Florida and Arizona, joined 40+ other states in rejecting gay marriage. Polls show that Generations X, Y and the Millenials, are all more pro-life than Baby Boomers.
Now we get to the crux of the matter: Their may not be enough non-secular whites to win a majority, but why would we want to, especially when we don’t have to?
Yes, economic and national security conservatism sells, and it sells best to people of faith. They generally go hand in hand. The problem has been that Blacks have been held captive for 40 years by an exploitive Democratic Party whose Big Lie message has been that America is inherently racist.
Ironically, the election of a self-described African-American may be what finally un-clogs the ears and opens the eyes of many Blacks to the universal message of the GOP.
The Big Lie of the left is now exposed. Don’t listen to a Caucasian rooster. Listen to blacks on the left and the right:
There is no other nation in the world where a 75% majority electorate has elected as their supreme leader a man who identifies as one of that nation’s historically oppressed minorities.
Jason Whitlock (pictured above):
Barack Obama had just won the presidency, and the realization that America loved them back stampeded my parents’ emotions like a wedding proposal from the perfect lover you assumed would never settle down.
Shortly after leaving the voting booth, [the] 70-year-old community activist…had a thought: “Why do I have to be listed as African-American? Why can’t I just be American?”
I especially like Whitlock’s “America loved them back”!
Fellow conservatives, we, like Whitlock and Williams, have long realized race was no longer a serious impediment to advancement in America and that it is the left’s fault that more haven’t realized same as Blacks have blindly voted 90+% for Democrats despite their failures to deliver on their promises.
That is now past, and maybe, human nature being what it is, it took the election of one of their own to bring home the “love back”. James Taranto echoes gamecock on the prospect that Blacks will now be freed of their Democratic past and cites the example of Catholics post-JFK and Deep South Southerners post-Carter.
It may be too optimistic to hope for major changes minority voting patterns in four years given that Obama will be running for re-election. But the work must begin in earnest now to recruit blacks and Hispanics to run as Republicans in 2010 to join these examples in elected office.
Blacks will now get to see one of their own as President as they live their lives with the realization that their lot in life is mainly determined by what they do, not who gets elected. They will also become more open to the fact that liberty, not government controls, is the best path to prosperity.
As Obama supporter, John McWhorter states, they will be able to have “an honest discussion about the role racism does not play in black communities’ problems.”
Add to the above the fact that a disproportionate number of minorities serve in a US armed force that liberal democrats loathe, and the general aversion to weakness abroad that most Americans share, and you have the makings of a Reaganite-like coalition.
Why?
The overwhelming majority of Blacks and Hispanics are Bible-believing Christians and part of a faith-based American majority.
Despite all the odds against the GOP generally; inherent non-conservative flaws of John McCain; inept McCain campaign; lower GOP base turnout; and October financial crisis surprise, we only lost by 5% in a still mostly 50/50 nation.
We could win in four years just by getting back to 2004 levels of support, but with the “change” wrought by Obama, we may finally have the opening to build the conservative majority in government.
The market for conservative sales may just have gotten a lot larger.
____________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts
http://race42008.com/2008/11/14/even-democrats-can%e2%80%99t-win-a-secular-american-majority/trackback/
November 14th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Secular is not the opposite of believing in God. Athiesm is the opposite of believing in God.
Secular generally includes people from most of the following groups: non-fundamentalist denominations, non-serious Catholics, people who go to Church to feel good or for social reasons, people who don’t believe the Bible is literally true and see it as allegories, people who don’t believe in an active God.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Free the GOP
The Party Won’t Win Back the Middle as Long As It’s Hostage to Social Fundamentalists
By Christine Todd Whitman and Robert M. Bostock
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303347.html
In seven of the nine states that switched this year from Republican to Democratic, Obama’s vote total exceeded the total won by President Bush four years ago. So even if McCain had equaled the president’s numbers from 2004 (and he did not), he still would have lost in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia (81 total electoral votes) — and lost the election. McCain didn’t lose those states because he failed to hold the base. He lost them because Obama broadened his base.
Nor did the Republican ticket lose because “values voters” stayed home. On the contrary, according to exit polls, such voters made up a larger proportion of the electorate this year than in 2004 — 26 percent, up from 23 percent. Extrapolating from those data, McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago — 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Gamecock,
I believe in God but I consider myself pretty secular. I go to Church (catholic mass) on Easter and Christmas. I don’t particularly want to hear about God’s Point Of View on the campaign trail.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Gamecock,
Very well thought out editorial. Unfortunately, it seems to be based on optimism and hope, not from facts and numbers.
Hope you’re right, but every stat, poll, and data chart that I’ve seen says otherwise.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Mike,
I have heard a number of pro-lifers like yourself mention this alleged finding as fact. Can you please cite the internals from two or three current polls that confirm your contention? Thanks.
Are you of the misguided belief that the vast majority of Americans who believe in God oppose our constitutional separation of church and state?
Why didn’t you just accurately assert that no “atheist American majority exists?”
November 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“Are you of the misguided belief that the vast majority of Americans who believe in God oppose our constitutional separation of church and state”
I think most would be against the extremes to which that doctrine has been taken: banning pledge, removing nativity scenes, etc.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Opinionated,
Whitman is diagnosing the problem the way she has always wanted to diagnose it. 2004 and 2008 is an apples-to-oranges comparison. She’s using pretty flimsy data. Plenty of people decided to vote for Obama in spite of his social liberalism, and not because of it. McCain was leading in polling until the economic collapse. Had he retained parity in national polling with Obama until Election Day he would have won OH, FL, NC, VA and IN at the very least – because all of those states were more Republican than the nation as a whole.
I think the party needs to focus more on promoting making good decisions, like personal responsibility and talking about the virtue of hard work and the opportunities from therein. The party should call attention to the fact that those that make bad decisions shouldn’t look for a handout and should not expect one to be forthcoming. If you buy a house you can’t afford then you’re on your own. No more bailouts for bad behavior. There always needs to be a safety net but there shouldn’t be any free rides. That kind of social conservatism will sell. And the emphasis needs to be off gay marriage and abortion – but the party DOES need to keep the so-cons on board. They just can’t give away the store.
Whitman’s coalition of fiscal conservatism and defense hawkishness isn’t enough to win. We need to at least keep the so-cons on board.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Incidentally one thing Obama could do to gain street cred with some weaker Republicans they may not have voted for him is to make a public statement telling the militant gays in California to knock off what they’re doing. I don’t want to see any more hissy fits with these crazy people on the streets throwing rocks at Mormon and Catholic Churches. Enough is enough. They lost. They need to get over it. They’ll get their chance again and they’ll eventually get their way. The rest of us aren’t rioting in the streets because our guy didn’t win.
That would really take some balls on Obama’s part – and it would show he is not beholden to the far left. It could be his “Sister Souljah” moment.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I agree with you on both counts Adams, it is better to have all three wings of the party satisfied and no we are not the ones rioting in the streets.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Seems like Aron is the only person around here who understands what the word “secular” means. I find this stunning. Although a lot of Republican cluelessness could well be explained by such misunderstanding.
Secular does not mean atheistic. It does not mean weakly religious. You could be the frickin’ pope and be a secularist (unfortunately he isn’t though).
To be politically secular means to accept that most important of basic American principles – that it is best for politics and for religion that the government simply guarantee that people are free to practice their religion, but otherwise stays out of all religous matters.
The government is secular – it concerns itself with the everyday tasks of life – defending the country, building roads and schools and stuff like that. Teaching values, espousing moral principles, these things are the work of religions. The people are free to adopt any religion they want, and religions are free to persuade as many people as they can. But they must not try to seize the coercive power of government to compel people to follow their strictures.
You could be the most religious and pious person in the world. If you understand that religion is a matter of the heart – that it is meaningless if not accepted volunatarily – that you cannot coerce people into faith, and thus you have no desire to use government to promote your religious values, then you are a secularist.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
final thought on previous comment.
Jesus was totally, 100% a secularist.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Talking about balls…
It appears Jesse Jackson’s got nothing on Vladimir Putin…
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081114182621.vv2zwfd0&show_article=1
November 14th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Fellow conservatives, we, like Whitlock and Williams, have long realized race was no longer a serious impediment to advancement in America and that it is the left’s fault that more haven’t realized same as Blacks have blindly voted 90+% for Democrats despite their failures to deliver on their promises.
I find it annoying that people consistently ignore the fact that the republican party has actively deployed campaign strategies that were fueled by racial undertones for their effectiveness. There were indeed a whole lot of years when state power was arrayed against blacks and it should be no surprise that blacks looked to the left. For many years, institutional systems still operated against black achievement absent the force of state power, though it could be overcome by prodigious effort and many have done.
But just like Latinos listened to party rhetoric on immigration and concluded “hey, these guys are not for me”, blacks have historically done the same. Rejecting republican/conservative leadership was completely rational, even up to today, when you see the political arguments about Obama’s tax plan comparing it to welfare for example. Intellectually, the comparison may be apt, but political operatives know exactly what buttons they are pushing when they conjure certain imagery, and blacks are not stupid, they understand it too.
Stop putting forward analysis that acts like republican politicians don’t actively use underlying racial tensions in the society to create wedge issues and game for political advantage, because they do. And when you do that, the signal you send is that you are not for black people, and its rational for them to reject what you are selling out of self interest.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
7 Adam
I’m all for keeping the SoCons on board. I am not for allowing the SoCons to have a veto on people and issues. Everyone is willing to compromise but the SoCons. Giuliani would have been a great candidate and President and Romney would have not had to diminish himself by odd contortions to appease them.
As things stand today, I agree with Whitman that as long as they control the guts of the Party, we may never again see Republicans in charge.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
[...] me piggieback on Gamecock’s post on religion in politics. I’ll go a step further. The “analysts” who are [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
[...] me piggieback on Gamecock’s post on religion in politics. I’ll go a step further. The “analysts” who are [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
[...] Wing of the Republican Party November 14, 2008 6:27 pm Adam Graham 2008 Race Let me piggieback on Gamecock’s post on religion in politics. I’ll go a step further. The “analysts” who are [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
[...] me piggieback on Gamecock’s post on religion in politics. I’ll go a step further. The “analysts” who [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I’m all for keeping the SoCons on board. I am not for allowing the SoCons to have a veto on people and issues. Everyone is willing to compromise but the SoCons. Giuliani would have been a great candidate and President and Romney would have not had to diminish himself by odd contortions to appease them.
Translation: “I’d like to have the SoCon vote, but I’m not so keen on actually paying any attention to them.”
I do find it a hard statement that only SoCons are unwilling to compromise. Anybody remember Club for Growth?
And it must be said that Giuliani would not have been “a great candidate” because he got really tiring. It wasn’t just that I disagreed with him, but if I heard him tell that same story about the Saudi Prince one more time, I was going to scream.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:22 am
Gamecock
I am catholic
please separate these two different things : religion and politics
thanks.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Aron,
“I have heard a number of pro-lifers like yourself mention this alleged finding as fact. Can you please cite the internals from two or three current polls that confirm your contention? Thanks.”
A 2006 Pew poll about Gen X found that on the question of abortion, 37% of those over 30 thought abortion should be “generally available.” Among those 18-29, only 30% agreed with that.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/27/politics-and-the-dotnet-generation
Considering the general tendency to get more pro-life with age, I think it is a safe bet that Gen X and Y will be much more pro-life than the Boomers.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:22 am
For more info on the more pro-life stance of young voters, here’s a summary citing multiple polls:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2007/NRL01/PDF/PollsPage7.pdf
November 15th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
MWS,
Mike wrote:
I responded by writing:
You proceeded to cite a three-year-old Pew poll from December 2005, and a Gallup poll among 13-17 year-old teenagers from August 2003.
The Pew poll indicates that 30% of those in the 18-29 age group believe abortion should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother; actually one percentage point less than those 30+. Another 13% of those 18-29 believe abortion should never be permitted; two points more than the 11% of those over 30 who think abortion should always be illegal. There is no statistical distinction between the age categories on the positions defined as “pro-life.”
Instead of trying to cherrypick data from 3-5 years ago that still fails to back Gamecock’s assertion, why don’t you simply acknowledge what the multitude of current polling consistently reflects?
http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Here is the most recent polling data from Pew; a survey that was just conducted October 23-26, 2008, with the numbers from the previous week’s poll in parentheses.
Do you think abortion should be:
Legal in all cases 18% (19%)
Legal in most cases 35% (38%)
Illegal in most cases 24% (22%)
Illegal in all cases 16% (14%)
November 15th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
As a pro-life, pro-gay rights Conservative (a true conservative that is, one who opposes government intervention in ALL aspects of our lives) even I agree with this somewhat. But rather than championing God, guns and discrimination against gays, why not champion the values of hard work, commitment to ones family, patriotism, honesty and self-reliance?
I would venture to guess that most who frequent this site are in their 20s. You all should know as well as I do that if the GOP becomes the unabashedly anti-equal rights party we are doomed for eternity. Radio talk show hosts and cable news talking heads who claim the GOP lost this year because we were not far right enough on social issues are destroying the party. Thankfully, most will be departing this Earth (or at least the airwaves) in the next decade.