The Washington Times, no liberal rag, uses its editorial page today to parse the latest findings from the nonpartisan Pew survey of US political attitudes. The Pew findings are pretty disastrous for the GOP, and TWT doesn't even argue against this point. I found this passage from the Times edit to be intriguing:
The Pew survey also revealed that Republicans were quite critical of their party's performance, a development that reflected a complete reversal from the contentment in GOP circles before the 2004 elections. Specifically, only 36 percent of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents rated the party's performance as "excellent" or "good" in "standing up for traditional [Republican] issues." Sixty-two percent rated the performance as "only fair" or "poor." By contrast, in July 2004, 61 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents rated the GOP's performance as excellent/good, while only 37 percent considered it only-fair/poor. Quite unhappy are white evangelical Protestants, who comprised nearly a quarter of the 2004 electorate and gave 78 percent and 74 percent of their votes that year to President Bush and House Republican candidates, respectively. Whereas 66 percent of white evangelicals in 2004 rated the party's performance on traditional issues as excellent/good, only 42 percent believed that to be the case last month.• Issues of greatest concern to voters today tend to be those issues (the economy, health care, Iraq and education) on which Democrats enjoy sizable advantages. Moreover, voters, especially Republicans and independents, give less importance today to social issues (e.g., abortion and homosexual "marriage") than they did three years ago. Compared to 52 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of independents who considered abortion to be "very important" in October 2004, today only 42 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents do so. Republicans and independents who considered homosexual "marriage" to be very important in 2004 declined by 12 percentage points, falling from 39 percent and 27 percent among Republicans and from 29 percent to 17 percent among independents.
Actually it doesn't surprise me that much that rank-and-file Republican voters are sick of our party. It's just anecdotal, of course, but I find that moving around Dallas, when I get into political conversations with Republicans, they hardly have a word to say about Democrats; it's all GOP-bashing, in the same sense a frustrated father would use to describe a ne'er-do-well son. I don't hear any good words about the Democrats, only anger and frustration about the Republicans. According to Pew, a shocking 44 percent of Republicans say they'll consider voting for a conservative third party candidacy for president. For what that's worth.
The more interesting news here is the falloff in feeling among Republicans and independents that abortion and gay rights are significant issues. The economy, Iraq and immigration are far more important to Republican voters this year than the traditional social-conservative concerns. Independents feel about the same way, except health care is at the top of their lists. Why the drop-off? I have a couple of guesses:
1) The crises in Iraq, the economy (housing bubble) and illegal immigration strike at the sense of personal and communal security these voters feel. Abortion and gay marriage are perceived as threats that are more abstract, ergo less urgent.
2) Besides, how much can one do about either in this political environment? There's likely a growing sense among conservative voters that the GOP has been using abortion and gay marriage as a way to rally socially conservative voters behind the Republican flag, without intending to do much about either. It's true that some restrictions on abortion have been passed by the GOP Congress, and signed by the GOP president. But there's only so much they can do under Roe v. Wade. GOP rule has given us two justices, Roberts and Alito, who will do as much as can be expected to reverse Roe, but the fact is, even if Roe were overturned tomorrow, all that would mean is states can decide how to regulate it. Abortion would be fully legal in most states a day or two later. I'm thinking that religious and social conservatives might be starting to realize that reducing abortion is going to require changing the culture in which abortion is seen as a solution. And that's not something you can accomplish through politics, or at least not through politics alone.
On gay marriage, the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2005 was the last hope theocons and socialcons had to stop the move toward gay marriage rights. The GOP had campaigned nationally on that issue in 2004, but when their moment of truth came, they caved. Bush made a perfunctory statement endorsing the FMA, but it flopped. He put exactly zero effort into advocating for it. Any conservative voter with a lick of sense understood clearly from that point on that the Republican Party only pays lip service to this issue. What is the point of making opposition to gay marriage rights a significant factor in determining your vote when neither party will do a thing to support your point of view? It only stands to reason.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I am tired of bunches of pompous, self righteous and hypocritical politicians trying to tell me about morality. I get my sense of morality from God and leave the government to render the laws of man.
"We forget it wasn't long ago there wasn't a "pro-choice" party, and nearly pol was anti-abort. Abortion follows feminism, and both are a new, temporary thing, merely a cultural blip on the radar that will die off once it becomes mainstream. Once again, duh, feminism's whole creed is anti-kid, with abortion and the birth control pill their talismans."
Really?
After Roe Vs. Wade was decided, the Southern Baptist Church applauded the decision. Granted, they were not yet a political party, but to say that politcians were united against abortion is Just. Plain. Wrong. In 1972 abortion had been making its way for years through state legislatures and was being liberalized in many states. By politicians.
The well-being of women and children and of preventing sexual predation against women and children were always feminist concerns. Sexual "liberation" of women by the Pill happened before the women's movement blossomed. One of the many drivers towards feminism was the number of women who bought the sales pitch of sexual freedom in the 50s and when the Pill came on the market in 1960, and didn't like the outcomes at all. It fit right to closely with the disgusting Playboy mentality taking hold in some quarters of maledom. Feminism blasted a whithering critique of the money-driven portrayal of over-sexualized females held up as ideals by the media. Our earliest concerns included equal pay for equal work (any of you traditionalist guys here still against that? Speak up!) Ever notice the alignment of feminists with anti-porn crusaders in the 80s? (No? I was there. It was one of the most uncomfortable moments for right-wing and religious "decency" groups finding themselves in league with hard-core feminists.)
Feminists raised some of the earliest concerns about the pill. Find an original edition of Our Bodies, OurSelves and note the concerns about hormones and other drugs used on women by a pharmaceutical/medical complex more interested in profits than womens' and children's well-being.
It was and is not the feminist movement who want women sexually available with no repercussions to men. It is corporate America that will sell it's own mothers and daughters for a buck.
You can't even get basic history right, which is all available if you do research instead of taking talking points from the same right-wing propaganda machine that has had you voting for "pro-life" Republicans who will never, ever, do anything about abortion.
Elizabeth, the most disturbing thing about M_David's universe is not only that he doesn't get history right but rather his apparent complete ignorance of how sex between humans actually functions between real men and women outside of the theater of his own mind:
"The demographic issues for the US are actually condoms becoming legal in 1918 & the sale of an effective birth control pill in the 1960's.
This is THE most massive social change in recorded human history: technology allowing us to easily circumvent the mighty sex drive to avoid having children. Due to this, hundreds of millions of progressives are vanishing from the gene pool by choice practically overnight. Unheard of. Abortion is simply minor in comparison (which is, in the end, simply people cleaning up when their contraception fails).
For these reasons we are witnessing population drops among liberal peoples of the world at an incredible rate that exceeds that of the Black Death. Birth control is like some sort of weird disease that hits only progressives (by definition).
namely, that condoms and the Pill are actually not agents of mass sterilization (let's review, just to be sure he really said this)--
"Due to this, hundreds of millions of progressives are vanishing from the gene pool by choice practically overnight."..."For these reasons we are witnessing population drops among liberal peoples of the world at an incredible rate that exceeds that of the Black Death. Birth control is like some sort of weird disease that hits only progressives (by definition)"
--but rather agents which allow those who employ them to control the timing of conception and subsequent birth at whatever rates they wish, with therefore better chance, by having them at optimum times, of raising more children successfully to subsequent reproductive adulthood.
Once you understand M_David's unfortunate and fundamentally mistaken grasp of the birds and the bees, you subsequently understand how this fundamental misunderstanding of human biology and sexuality can lead him into all his other peculiar conclusions involving real human beings out there in the real world, the bizarre "demographics" he repeatedly pulls out of thin air, and so forth.
elizabeth: In 1972 abortion had been making its way for years through state legislatures and was being liberalized in many states. By politicians.
Did you even read what I wrote?
What I said was: "We forget it wasn't long ago there wasn't a "pro-choice" party, and nearly pol was anti-abort." This is true. You are yapping about '72 (when only 4 states allowed abortion on demand, btw). I am talking about 1900-1950 (read at my post, which takes the birth control back to 1918). Oh, and the early "woman's movement" was anti-abortion. Back in the day, nearly everyone was.
Ever notice the alignment of feminists with anti-porn crusaders in the 80s?
Yeah, all the time (snort). And I really enjoyed watching all those feminists complaining and standing up to Bill Clinton when he was pawing Monica. Their honesty made me so uncomfortable!
It was and is not the feminist movement who want women sexually available with no repercussions to men.
Did I ever say it was? No.
It is corporate America that will sell it's own mothers and daughters for a buck.
Ummmm...sure. Whatever.
You can't even get basic history right
Give me my exact quote of where my history is wrong. I want to hear it exact. So far, I haven't seen a single thing I've said you are even contesting. In fact, I havn't heard a single thing from you that I didn't already know about or even applies to what I've written.
...instead of taking talking points from the same right-wing propaganda machine that has had you voting for "pro-life" Republicans who will never, ever, do anything about abortion.
Snicker. I'm not even right-wing, you silly goose. My politics lean as much left as right; I'm anti-war, anti-death penalty, for legalizing drugs, raising the mimimum wage, and I'm soft on crime and want prison reform. Finally: I know exactly what I get when I vote pro-life. Always. But I'll never vote for a pro-abort ever.
What is so funny is that for all your fire you haven't even addressed my post, which was about demographics. So I must have hit a nerve. The truth has a way of doing that...
Your demographic "points" have not hit anything. I discern no point to them. I have no investment in the future of religiosity and am somewhat of a social conservative myself, preferring intact families and stable neighborhoods full of well-reared children and adults with good manners and self-control. If the future holds more of that, the better for my son and the kids he produces.
"Abortion follows feminism, and both are a new, temporary thing, merely a cultural blip on the radar that will die off once it becomes mainstream. Once again, duh, feminism's whole creed is anti-kid, with abortion and the birth control pill their talismans."
Nothing in that indicated that you were discussing first wave feminism - which as you point out was anti-abortion, so how is it that abortion follows feminism and is anti-kid?
When you stuck feminism and the pill together, I naturally, silly goose that I am, thought you meant them connected, so I presumed second wave feminism at the earliest, which I remember well as not anti-kid. Second wave feminism celebrated natural childbirth and breast feeding, among other things. You might be interested in the recent phenomenon of "4 is the new 2" (obnoxious, isn't it?). High-powered career women who quit their jobs for family find that they have too much energy for 2 children and can only justify leaving their careers if they have at least four kids to manage.
Re: the anti-porn thing in the 80s- did you even read what I wrote? (Tee-hee.) Clinton was not in the White House in the 80s.
Question: Are Muslims progressives now? In an earlier thread someone posted UN numbers showing that while Muslim countries currently have the highest birth rate next to S-S Africa, they have the most rapidly falling birth rates in the world and will meet the US birth rate around 2050. Wondering what you make of that, if it is true.
One last thing, I am against the death penalty too, though when it was time for Florida to kill Ted Bundy, a tiny voice in my anti-death-penalty mind whispered "make it look like an accident." ;^\
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.