|
|
Monday, November 08, 2004
|
|
ASK skippy: PART FOURTEEN
Since none of you teenagers have asked a question since September 5, I figured this feature had come a quiet and unmourned passing. Yet again, Smallholder of Naked Villany comes to the rescue with this;
The Villains over at Naked Villainy have been mixing it up over at the
blog over
some questions I posted:
http://www.nakedvillainy.com/2004/11/for-foreign-minister.html
Mike and Greg resonded:
http://www.nakedvillainy.com/2004/11/pontifications-post-election-style.html
http://www.nakedvillainy.com/2004/11/i-am-sorry-that-this-is-little-tardy.html
I hope Mike is right that the power of the evangelicals is being
overplayed by
the media.
What do you think? I would love your answers to the questions I posed.
Smallholder
Much has been made about the exit polling from Tuesday last. Since that same polling also projected a Kerry victory in Florida, Ohio and the Electoral College, I would be wary about reading too much into it, particularly where the religous right and the primacy of "moral values" comes in. Karl Rove tends to agree with me as he affirmed on Meet the Press yesterday.
MR. RUSSERT: We asked the people leaving the voting booth why they voted for a certain candidate, what was the most important issue, and here is what we found. Moral values--22 percent said that was the most important issue. They sided with the president, 80 to 18. Those who said the economy and jobs--20 percent sided with John Kerry; same number, 80-18. Terrorism--19 percent of the voters, they sided with George W. Bush, 86-14. Iraq--15 percent opted for John Kerry; those who thought Iraq was the most important issue. And health care also overwhelmingly for John Kerry. When you read or see or hear moral values, what does that mean?
MR. ROVE: Well, I think it's people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on the television sets, what they see in the movies, what they read in the newspapers, how they see the values of the country, what they see as the future for our country.
I do have a little bit of a different view of those numbers. First of all, if you take Iraq and terrorism and aggregate them, which I think are sort of different sides of the same coin, 34 percent of the electorate we're concerned with, if you will, the security issue. If you take taxes and the economy and aggregate them, they're 25 percent of the electorate and then moral values is third. That's not to denigrate the importance of moral values which have traditionally been about 16 percent of the electorate have been concerned with that as their number one issue in past races. What essentially happened in this race was people became concerned about three issues--first, the war, then the economy, jobs and taxes, and, third, moral values. And then everything else dropped off of the plate. And security grew the most in comparison to past races but values grew second, the second most amount.
This is an important flaw in the exit polling. It appears that Iraq and the larger War on Terror were asked as seperate priorities. Many people -quite possibly the majority of them- do not make a distinction between the two. Thusly, this was a national security election and when that is the main issue in a campaign, the Democrats traditionally lose. The only campaign since 1948 that the Democrats won where national security was a major issue was in 1964 when Barry Goldwater commented that he would "send a nuclear missile into the Kremlin men's room." Some might point to 1960, but its arguable that he even won that election and, even if he did, he cheated on national security in ways that are too lengthy to explain now. It remains that in 1952, 56, 68, 72, 80 and 88, the Republicans won.
If Rove is right, and I believe that he is, the issue of "values voters" becomes moot.
But let's assume for a second that Karl and I are wrong. What does this mean?
Short answer: not much. There was another president who ran away with the religious vote. His name was Ronald Wilson Reagan. That was in 1980. Religious conservatives believed that Reagan's election would mean an end to abortion and the "coarsening of culture." Notice how right they were? It's good to see how abortion just stopped and we never got to see Sharon Stone's snatch, huh?
But let's continue assuming that Karl and I are wrong. What could the President do about it? Let's return to the tape, shall we?
MR. RUSSERT: But what can a president do about the coarseness of a society?
MR. ROVE: Well...
MR. RUSSERT: There's nothing he can do legislatively.
MR. ROVE: Oh, sure he can. And this president has attempted to do that by putting into place laws that protect the weak and vulnerable, whether it's partial-birth abortion ban or the Laci Peterson law or to pursue a compassionate agenda that allows the great mediating structures of our society, neighborhood and church and community-based organizations to play a fuller role in confronting the despair and poverty that exists in our country. You bet there's a lot. The global AIDS initiative is part of that. There are lots of things that a president can do, and this president is committed to doing so.
You'll notice that Karl left out stuff that the Evangelicals really care about, like eliminating abortion completely or outlawing homosexuality? The stuff he included are things that the Democrats largely agree with, if only in principle.
MR. RUSSERT: Is the president indebted to evangelical Christians?
MR. ROVE: The president has an obligation to serve all the people of America. He has some tremendous supporters. If you look at the difference in the vote between last time and this time, there are about--and there are overlaps between these groups obviously. There are about 3.35 million people more people who voted for him who attend church more than once weekly or weekly. There are also 4.4 million more women who voted for this president than voted for him four years ago; 1.5 million more Latinos; 4.15 million more seniors; 3.4 million more people who live in big cities; 2.3 million people who live in exurbs and smaller cities. So his victory came from a wide variety of places. People of faith played a big role in that. They saw in him a vision and values and ideas that they supported, and he'll pursue those in office.
Sounds intimidating if you're a homosexual pagan abortionist, right?
MR. RUSSERT: One Democrat said to me, "Are we on the verge of a theocracy, where if you don't agree with the president and evangelical Christians on abortion or on gays, there really is no room for you to practice what you believe in the United States?"
MR. ROVE: Well, the president made it clear almost every speech when he talked about this and particularly when he took questions on things that--these forums that we had around the country. He made it clear that one of the great things about America is that we have the freedom to worship or not worship as we please. It doesn't matter whether you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim. It doesn't matter whether you're an evangelical or a Catholic or a moderate Jew. You're entitled to worship--or an agnostic or atheist. You're entitled in this country to worship as you please or to not worship. It's one of the great things that defines us as a nation, and it's at the heart of what it is to be in America.
Oh.
MR. RUSSERT: Towards the end of the campaign, the president reaffirmed his opposition to gay marriage, but said he was open to civil unions. Would he support federal legislation to honor and respect civil unions with gay couples?
MR. ROVE: Well, my understanding is is that he was referring to civil relationships defined at a state level. He clearly believes that states have the right to define such things as the right to visitation in the hospital or inheritance rights or benefit rights. Those ought to be up to states. But he does believe very fervently that 5,000 years of human history should not be overthrown by the acts of a few liberal judges or by the acts of a few local elected officials. Marriage is and should be defined as being between one man and one woman.
MR. RUSSERT: But no federal law for civil unions?
MR. ROVE: He believes that the definition of relationships ought to be left up to the states and that proper protections can be put in place for the right to visit in the hospital or the right to inherit or other legal contractual questions like that.
I've repeatedly stated in this space why this position is utter horseshit, so I won't repeat it. But it is interesting how this position was no different from Senator Kerry's. Granted, he was lying and everything but so was the President. One loves homo love and the other wants it banished from humanity. But both understood reality. Gay marriage will be a FEDERAL reality, probably within 5 years. This will happen through the federal courts. Leaving it with them is smart politics. That way, you can adjust your position according to polling when that ruling comes down.
But what abortion, huh? 7 years ago, this would have meant nothing to me, but now that having sex with American women is something of a habit its gained some importance with me.
MR. RUSSERT: Is the president obligated to his support from the evangelical Christians to nominate people for the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade?
MR. ROVE: The president said during the campaign that in virtually every speech that he gave that he would continue to nominate men and women to the bench who are well-qualified and who would strictly interpret the law, who knew the difference between personal agendas and personal views on the one hand and the strict interpretation of the law. He'll continue to uphold that commitment. He has sent forward some terrific nominees, men and women of tremendous intellectual and legal abilities. And they are people who share his philosophy that judges are to be impartial umpires, not activists, not legislators who just happen to be wearing robes, but to be impartial umpires who strictly interpret the Constitution and apply it.
MR. RUSSERT: Does he think that Roe v. Wade was properly decided?
MR. ROVE: He's going to pick people for the bench and will strictly interpret the law. He's not going to have a litmus test. He's not going to ask judges--potential judges in advance how they would determine cases that might come before them. He thinks that violates the fundamental principle of what judicial nominations ought to be about. He believes that he ought to pick people who will impartially apply--interpret and apply the law, not people who have a political agenda or a personal agenda that they want to pursue on the court.
MR. RUSSERT: Does he think a right of privacy exists under the Constitution?
MR. ROVE: Griswold vs. Connecticut, I'm not sure. I've never discussed Griswold vs. Connecticut with the president.
This sounds surprisingly like "no litmus test on abortion" doesn't it?
By putting Karl out there and saying this the President is essentially telling Evangelicals "Listen, thanks for the support and all, but there's only so much I can do. I know you'll be disappointed and all, but we'll fix that during the Rapture."
I can't tell you how important this is. For most people, Karl Rove is just some schmuck with a bland title. To political insiders, Karl Rove is the President of the United States' guru on things political. This President does nothing without hearing the political consequences from Mr. Rove. And since Karl turned George Bush from a potential Jimmy Carter to a potential Ronald Reagan, the President is more likely to listen now than ever before.
Here's how politics works, each party plays a "base plus" game. You firm up your major base of support and add to it until the total is 270 Electoral votes. Can you imagine what would happen to a Democrat who endorsed ending affirmative action or enacting significan tort reform? I think you can. Now why do you suppose that a Republican would do that to himself by saying that abortion and gay sex are "yummy?"
Both parties know that their respective bases are on acid much of the time, but they can't risk pissing them off so much that they stay home on election day. The parties lie to their bases on a regular basis.
If one is so worried about the religious right with the Republicans in power, they would do well to look at the status of black people and unions when the Democrats were in office. They held two of the three branches of government (and often the trifecta) for much of the second half of the twentieth century. Did blacks and unions get anywhere near what they expected? Nope. Neither will evangelicals.
You may officially unknot your panties now.
Oh, I almost forgot to answer Smallholder's questions. Here they are.
1. Is a smaller federal goverment likely to come from this administration and Congress?
No. The federal government generally, and its spending particularly, have exploded under President Bush and the Republican Congress. Given how this has worked out for them, I expect it to be ramped up with an eye to consolodating their gains in '06. Nothing tends to succeed quite like success.
2.Is fiscal responsibilty likely from this administration and Congress?
See question #1.
I wrote last week that the government is much more about politics than it is government than ever before. Believe me on that the question answers itself.
3. Is this administration's muscular foreign policy likely to get results?
The jury is still out on that one. To xplore this, we need to look into history just a little.
As empires collapse and alliences shift, so does the geopolitical balance of power. The Great Empires of Europe largely disappeared following World War Two. Yet the nations that controlled those empires were propped up by the United States in response to the Soviet threat. Essentially, France and Germany were important following 1945 for no other reason than that the United States and the Soviet Union made them so.
In the last 20 years there have been new emerging geostrategic players, most notably China and India. Just as Rome and Greece ceased to be the center of the universe, Europe may so cease to be in the 21st century and be supplanted by Western Asia. This is reinforced by the fact that - as menacing as Islamic fundamentalism is to the United States - it is far more so to both India and China. Much depends on how this geostrategic shift is managed and this is where Iraq becomes important.
The Chinese, despite the naivetee of the Bush admnistration, have little use for concepts like "democracy" and "human rights." They do, however, value stability and non-agression. Iraq under Saddam was neither stable or non-agressive. If the United States can create a non-threatening, stable (if undemocratic) government in Iraq, China will likely support it and view it as a nation that it can establish a strategic partnership with in a changing world.
However, if America leaves psychotic anarchy sweeping through the Middle East and North West Asia, that directly threatens China and India, both of whom have significant Muslim populations. There are more than half as many Muslims in India than there are people in the United States. The same is probably true of China as well. If US foreign policy directly impacts the ability of these nations to govern themselves, they will respond appropriately and American partnerships with either will be impossible.
China and India have been at odds with one another forever. If they see America as a greater threat than they see each other, they may resolves those differences in hostility to it. However, if the US is seen as fostering the best interests of both, a new trilateral center of power may emerge in this cenntury. There are even broader consequences to this.
Much of the hostility in the Third World to the United States comes directly from its alignment to Europe which subjugated it for centuries. If the US aligns with its great powers, we may well FINALLY see progress in Africa and Asia. I'm not suggesting that this can happen overnight. It will take decades. But the ramifications are larger than I've heard anyone discuss.
It can go either way at this point.It can be revolutionary, or it can be catastrophic. And it all begins in Iraq.
Permalink
|
|
|
| |
