Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I think you were a little hard on the Kossacks over Evangelicals.  It wasn't the awful intolerance one of them tried to make it, but I'm also not in favor of rejecting Evangelical support if it's forthcoming.  (If they want to vote for us -- great, vote for us.  If not -- oh well.  Hope for it, but don't bet on it.)  The question isn't whether or not we want Evangelicals, but whether or not we can work with some of them on a few key issues where we happen to agree.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 12:08:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have nothing against individual Evangelicals, but my issue is with the putative Evangelical voting bloc. If the Kossacks can engineer Primary challenges what prevents the Evangelicals from doing the same? If the Democratic party becomes hegemonic it's not so far-fetched that something like that would happen. Is the Democratic party invulnerable to Entryism and is the Moral Majority or however they call themselves these days not capable of it?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 03:18:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Theoretically, they could, but Evangelicals don't simply vote for people who are "born again".  Reagan wasn't "born again".  He was a divorced b-movie actor who got an erection every time someone said "tax cut".  Hell, they voted out Carter in huge numbers for Reagan, and it's hard to imagine a candidate more Evangelicious than Carter (or is he a problem since he's actually read the Bible unlike the Bushes and Falwells of the world?).

I don't think the Dems are vulnerable to a lot of influence from the Religious Right, at least not at this point in time, because those Evangelicals who do vote Dem are not of the hard-right theocrat variety.  Some Evangelicals are simply progressives, even on choice and gay marriage.  If younger ones are starting to skew that way, shouldn't that be a good thing?

Put another way: If having some Evangelicals as part of our party were to jeopardize our stand for women's rights or the rights of same-sex couples, then I'd agree that we don't want them.  But if they come over to vote for us now and then simply because they agree with us on climate change and universal health care -- well, hey, hard to argue with that, isn't it?  It's all a question of whose terms we play on.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 09:03:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, is there an Evangelical Voting Bloc, or not? (googling...)

Newsweek: The Myth of the Evangelical Voting Bloc: Megachurch pastor Rick Warren on the 2008 campaign. (Nov 30, 2007)

NEWSWEEK: How is the evangelical vote shaping up? Who's got it?

Rick Warren: The biggest myth and the biggest misunderstanding about evangelicals is that they are a voting bloc. This article that came out on the cover of The New York Times Magazine saying the evangelical vote was splintering--the guy just didn't get it, they never have been a voting bloc. They tend to vote for people, not down party lines. Evangelicals--what they have in common is not their political views but their commitment to Christ. I don't really believe in Blue and Red States. What I really see is urban values and the-rest-of-the-country values. In the 2004 election, 94 percent of Manhattan went for Kerry. What do I know about Manhattan? You can't afford to live there if you're a family. There's a preponderance of single adults, and single adults tend to be more liberal than people with families. So I don't really believe in a Red and Blue division. America is really purple, a combination of both. People think, "Evangelicals, they're all just one thing"--well, they're not.

In the 2008 race, two guys could have been the evangelical candidate, Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee, and they divided that vote in half. One drops out, and all of a sudden you have a "surge" for Huckabee.  I think people are reading the whole thing wrong. On top of that, you know what? America loves change. We love change. No party stays in power all the time.

But come on, evangelicals have traditionally voted as a bloc over the past 30 years.

Here's what the bloc is. Evangelicals tend to vote for people who claim to be born again. Every president back to Carter--Bush One didn't make a big deal about it, but he would say that. What do all those guys have in common? Nothing, except that all six of them were, quote, "born again."  It didn't matter whether they were Republican or Democrat. What's interesting to me is how much Democrats have run toward expressing their faith and how much Republicans have run away from expressing their faith this year.



When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 04:43:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Rick Warren:  The biggest myth and the biggest misunderstanding about evangelicals is that they are a voting bloc.

Rick Warren:  Here's what the bloc is. Evangelicals tend to vote for people who claim to be born again.

Mark Noll:  "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind..."

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series