Here in California, the voters defeated every ballot proposition: No on all eight of them. This is a massive rebuke of Schwarzenegger. He called this special election, in part because Republicans knew that a special election will have a small, conservative turnout. To boost that, they put an anti-choice measure on the ballot. To no avail. Still NO.
In other national news, right-wingers were rejected at the ballot box, most notably in Virginia, where a frothy red-state bigot named Kilgore went down to the Democrat, Kaine, in the governor's race. Kilgore was running primarily on the strength of (1) his accent, and (2) his kill'em'all'fast death penalty stance. Way to go, Virginia! In Maine, the right-wingnuts put an initiative on the ballot to repeal the law that prohibits discriminating against gays. Yup, the so-called 'christians' wanted the right to fire people just because they were gay. No dice, said Mainers.
Other good news, 25% of Texans are not bigots. More than we might have expected. Sadly, the other 75% voted to ban gay marriage in the state.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
A Chorus of "No"s
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 5:47 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
LTG is so right. Despite Arnold's low-turnout, special election with Red-baiting propositions, voters rejected them all. This is a huge slap in the face. Now we'll see how Arnold contends with failure. I have a feeling he's going to be a sore loser.
Oh, and Texas already had banned gay marriage by legislative action. Maine voters, on the other hand, ratified an anti-discrimination act to protect gays and lesbians that the legislature had previously passed. Voters in Maine had rejected similar measures twice during the past decade... so winds of change are blowing up North, if not down South.
With the Democratic victories (by no small margins) in NJ and Virginia, this is a good day to be a Democrat.
All in all, I think what voters said at the polls was 1)we elect you to govern. So go do it and quit wasting money (some $30 bil this time) on special elections. 2) we hate the referendum process so quit it. 3) watch out or we will throw all of you out regardless of party.
I think Californians are really tired now with certain parts of our state government. But on the other hand, we like certain things about it. We like that we protect teachers and union labor. And we don't blame teachers for failing schools. I think also, that Californians reinforced the importance of education by refusing to give the governor a veto over state budgeting laws.
There are some problems, though. Voters want to protect education. However, locking up 70% of the state's general fund and refusing to reform the state tax system isn't helping anything, especially not education. For the record, I hope Californians are aware of the mistake they made in tossing out Gray Davis. I think he got a bad wrap. He didn't cause California's problems and in fact, he was making progress in fixing them. But someone with too much money, too much time, and too many useful friends fixed decided to use him as a scapegoat for the sins of the Wilson administration.
State expenses have gone up. California only gets 60 cents back for every dollar it sends to Washington. Montana I think gets like $1.20 back for every dollar it sends. So we pay disproportionately for what we get from the Feds and it isn't getting better. Homeland security alone milks a huge budget since CA has so many "Targets of opportunity".
So, in an attempt to totally reform state government and protect his party, Schwartzy took his case to the voters, again. This time, though, he got slapped and rightly so.
// posted by USWest
I agree with everything everyone's said on this thread so far! Good day to be a Democrat! Good that 25% of Texans are reasonable people! And Gray Davis got a bum rap being blamed for the energy crisis!
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Some qualifications on the joy in Virginia. Kaine is an anti-Choice, overtly religious "Democrat." So Virginia Democrats may have retained control of the governorship at the cost of control of their party.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Kaine is a Catholic, who was once a missionary. The race was made famous for Kaine's commercials stating that while he was personally opposed to the death penalty and abortion as a Catholic, he could and would enforce the state's laws permitting both.
That's not at all the same as the gun-toting fundamentalist he ran against and beat.
// posted by LTG
I suppose not as bad as his opponent (and I'd've probably voted for him rather than a third party candidate if I were in Virginia) but we should at least be less confident in his committment. At best he's a "status quo" Democrat. At worst he's a theocrat in Democrat's clothing.
To be honest, this is the kind race that I (as an atheist) fear most. A contest between the religious right and the religious center. I fear the rising prominence of religion in politics. I see it as directed ultimately against secular intellectuals (a group far larger by the way than absolute atheists).
The kind of "trust me, I won't oppress you" comments from the Religious left and center don't give me much comfort when the next thing they say is to make excuses for pro-religious bias being preserved in the system "because the country is mostly religious" (a contestable assertion by the way).
// posted by Raised By Republicans
What does one say, RBR? Your position as a radical secularist is well out of the mainstream of American politics. In almost every political race, the choice is actually between two or more religious people. Throughout American history, most (but not all) of our leaders have been churchgoing. I think at some level you misunderstand the role of religion in the lives of religious people. Fundamentalists take the view that their absolute detailed correctness may be imposed everywhere.
Kaine, and the mainstream, take the view that religion is important to a person, and that it forms the basis of their worldview and is a place from which political ideas and values grow, and against which policy may be measured. However, religion is, at heart, the source of broad statements of values that are the beginning of debate, not the locus of detailed specific answers that are the end of it. Fundamentalists open the bible, read it "literally" (i.e., naively through the prism of their own desire and prejudice) then see or deduce specific prescriptions for the budget and everything else. Mainstream believers do not.
// posted by LTG
I agree with LTG. We aren't going to chase religion away, nor should we. However, we do have to put religion in its proper place. Being extreme in any direction, including the secularist position, is dangerous. We have to be able to do as Cain did, accept faith on one hand and the law on the other. We have to see that governing is not the same thing as worshiping. Being intellectually mature enough to do that is what we need to strive for.
And this is interesting to me for a couple of reasons. It made me think of something that I was discussing with a friend yesterday. I was discussing the situation in France. And I suddenly struck on the idea that in this country we use government to form social order or policy. In France, they use government to create law and order and to protect the status quo. That is an important difference. For the mainstream, attitudes toward social policy start in the church-going family. Is that the proper role of government, to form social values through policy?
// posted by USWest
My fear is not that there will ever be religious candidates. My fear is that the Democratic party will take the Kaine victory in Virginia as pointing to the path to national success which would have the effect of disenfranchising as much as 50% of the US population (which is more secular than people like Kaine let alone his oponent).
While atheism is a minority position, the idea that a majority of Americans are as religious as Kaine let alone his opponent is arguably false . Why should we think it's hunky dorey if both candidates share a level of religiosity that is greater than the national average? The fact is most Americans go to Church monthly AT MOST and certainly don't look to relious hierarchies of either the left or right for cues on how to vote.
In conclusion, I'll suggest that if the state stopped subsidizing religion (through tax give aways etc), religiosity rates might drop even further.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Well, if so few people listen to their preachers when they vote, I am curious how we ended up with neo-cons winning elections. So what does that Make Kaine? A neo-lib? God, I hope not!
T
// posted by USWest
About 22% of voters (or about half of the GOP vote share) vote primarily because of "moral values." They control the GOP and the deal they make with the rest of the Republican voters is that they get theocracy in exchange for tax cuts and pro-corporate tax/regulatory structures (notice I didn't say "pro-market"). It's a kind of anti-social contract. The Democrats make it easy for this deal to stick by engaging in tired anti-market populism that scares the king maker demographic (secular moderates).
The problem isn't that these people are the majority (as LTG implies). The problem is that they are a well placed minority that has been given a free ride on a lot of social obligations for far too long.
My fear is absolutely what US West suggests. That the Democrats will decide that "faith and values" are the buzz words that will win votes and Kaine will become the new face of liberalism. The result will be pro-welfare religious candidates vs pro-tax cut religious candidates. I wonder how long it would take a legislature of such people to pass "Intelligent Design" legislation or further restrictions on abortion access.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Here is another report on religiosity in the USA. Not only is weekly church attendance NOT the majority practice but self described independent voters are the most secular.
This means that the debate about whether the Democratic Party should "Go Godly" is really about whether they should sell out to the right or the center. The center is secular.
Combining lots talk about faith and God will not attract the kind of voters the Democratic party needs. It will attract anti-choice, anti-science economic populists from the South and rural midwest. That is not where the party needs to go. The Democrats need secular middle class voters from urban and suburban midwest.
The Kaine strategy is a disaster in the making for the Democratic party.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Unfortunately, I am not sure what will attract the voters we need. If we are all so secular, then why were religious conservatives able to rig or highjack 2 elections? All those secular voters apparently chose not to vote, either that or they are disenfranchised.
I agree with you that a majority of Americans don't go to church. But church is not the sole indicator of faith. One of the reasons Kerry struggled is that he was uncomfortable talking about his faith. And for that matter, he wasn’t really good at talking about his values. He was one of us, a believer that religion is personal thing not to be worn on one's shirt sleeve. He was a policy guy, like Gore, who thought you could reason with the average American voter. Hahahahahahahaha!. If voters think values matter, and if they believe that church attendance or religious practice is a primary indicator of the "right" values, then what do you suggest? I am not saying that all Democrats should run around like Kaine. I agree that we shouldn't fold to the religious right. I agree it is dangerous. But we have to start taking about values aside from religion. And I don't hear anyone doing that but perhaps Jimmy Carter. By the way, I read like 3 sentences from his new book and gave up. It was too self-serving in my opinion.
// posted by USWest
As I've said before, the religious "values" voters are only influential because of their total dominantion of the GOP. They make up about 22% of the voters overall but about half of the GOP's votes. The GOP then combines theocratic social policy with tax cuts to win over the secular suburban voters who just see dollar signs and vote for them. The Democrats make that strategy easier when they appear to march off to the far left. A solidly centrist Democrat (like Clinton) would make mince meat of the Bush coalition.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
US West says, "[W]e have to start taking about values aside from religion." Hear, hear!
A person's character is no more correlated with their professed faith than with their ethnic and cultural background. I have known fundamentalist Christians who were among the most tolerant people I've ever met, and I've also known liberal Christians who were among the most closed-minded and judgmental.
So what if Kaine calls himself a Catholic, a Jew, an Evangelical, or a Muslim? We need to learn to look beyond that. For only then will we be able to divorce religion from politics and thus separate church from state.
I have a dream that we will one day live in a nation where politicians will not be judged by the color of their faith but by the content of their character.
How do you separate faith from character? Labels do not equal character, true. But only bigots think it does. Kaine was saying, "to know me, my values, and my character, you must understand that I am a deeply religious Catholic." He literally said that on NPR. Unbelievers tend to think of Religion as a set of abstract doctrines to which one prescribes, or a set of odd practices in which one engages. Believers see religion as a way of life and a way of being, a world-view.
I heartily concur that we must speak of values aside from religion, because we must communicate across religious backgrounds, and because such talk can exclude or marginalize.
The question, however, is how to express one's attachment to those values. I will bring that up in a main post.
// posted by LTG
How do you separate statements of faith from labels? We know people's values best by what they do.
Post a Comment