Interesting. As a Republican, I have always perceived the party's strategy (even when it controlled the White House and Congress) as viewing itself as the underdog. So while Rove seems worried, and I totally get why this should give you comfort, I do not see this as a big change in approach.
Yup; the Democrats are simultaneously out-of-touch with real Americans and always lose elections, and yet strangely powerful and omnipotent. Nothing new here.
viewing itself as the underdog.
This isn't false, but I don't think it's incompatible with what I said. I think the message is twofold: Republicans position themselves as being an abused and disrespected underdog with respect to rich/academic/media/political 'elites', but as being overwhelmingly the party of 'normal Americans'. The combined message is that while Democrats or liberals have power, Republicans have democratic legitimacy derived from their greater numbers and greater, for lack of a better word, 'normalcy'.
Once they're out there explicitly worrying about losing Congress, it's going to get harder for them to convincingly present Democrats as a tiny yet disproportionately and illegitimately powerful elite.
Well, they try to have it both ways, in most cases: Claiming a numerical majority (and annointing themselves the keepers of traditional values), and whining about popular culture not representing their experiences. It's more a powerful elites versus the masses narrative (Note: may not actually describe your experience- this is more the rural/suburban conservative- Somehow, I don't think that's your beat).
This isn't even really a particularly conservative movement that's being referenced, anyway- Rove's biggest sucesses have been always been GOTV campaigns among rural voters, and a big issue out there is those uppity city folk.
Moleman gets it right about elites vs. masses, I think; I don't know if "We might lose!" does cut against that narrative. Maybe it could be cast as "Those elites might dupe everyone else!"
But -- and this should be taken with much salt, since Rove is better at this that I am -- "We might lose!" doesn't seem like a great GOTV strategy. A nice strategy for fundraising among the elites, and getting incumbents not to retire, but judging by the polls a lot of conservative voters will respons "And the horse you rode in on." Bush and Congress don't have great approval ratings about now.
Also, despite my skepticism about the Truthout story, I think there's a non-trivial chance that Rove will soon be devoting his attention to not going to jail.
The way they square that circle is with the constant claims of massive voter fraud by the Dems. This serves two purposes- they convice the base that conservatives really are the majority but might lose because of them cheatin' libruls; and they get to cheat themselves by disenfranchising poor minorities with ID requirements, lack of polling places, etc.
I agree with Idealist & Moleman. The Republicans, especially the group that is far right and evangelical, seem to hold to this bizarre myth that they're a truly persecuted minority, like the Christians in Ancient Rome, except that they have a mandate because the entire country stands behind them, except for the 49.9% who don't. This should cause a fair amount of cognitive dissonance, but it doesn't.
So I see this as more of the same. We're persecuted! Here comes Ward Churchill! But he's coming after *all* of us! The Dems are against the majority of people and out of touch. But we're a persecuted minority!
I'm not going to claim that Democratic politics makes any more sense, but this bit has always amused me.
especially the group that is far right and evangelical, seem to hold to this bizarre myth that they're a truly persecuted minority, like the Christians in Ancient Rome
Indeed. My (very) Christian acquaintances talk about this all the time. Rome is a huge part of their modern-day conception of themselves. One might almost think they miss it. Any conversation we have about international politics inevitably comes around to the persecution of Christians in some African countries and in China. And while I think we can all agree that persecution of any minority population is a Bad Thing, I'm not sympathetic to the way many on that side of the religio-political divide try to blur the lines between the plight of Christians abroad and their petulant desire for a theocracy at home.
My theory is that Christianity and wealth don't mix well. Camels and needle's eyes. The U.S. is a wealthy country and many of the Christians in it are very well off. This should cause people to think (Pope John Paul II: The world is at your doorstep, Lazarus.) , but instead, it's more fun to count 'this movie doesn't agree with my morals' or 'gay people aren't currently being stoned to death' as persecution.
I'm not saying that a devout person will have an easy life, even if comfortable in the U.S. You're still going to have people dismissing your faith as 'belief in Jeebus', and that can be really fucking annoying. But look, if that's all you have to count as persecution, and your party controls both houses of Congress, the executive branch, and most of the judiciary, you are not staring down any lions in an arena. Even if your party loses, there are no lions.
Hm. Well, for the sake of argument, the cognitive dissonance Cala describes in 8 isn't really that insane: what it seems to be about is a gap between what/who is perceived as culturally privileged, and what/who is popular. So the "real" thing = popular ideology: "real Americans" live in "the Heartland" in their minds, if not geographically; they marry and have kids; they go to church; blah blah blah. "Elites" = culturally privileged ideology: "liberals" live in coastal cities in their minds if not geographically (I know I do); they have gay friends if they're not gay themselves; they see "feminist" issues like work/kids as important in ways that "real Americans" don't (since to them the idea that moms should stay home if they can is a given, and the reality that most moms do work is seen as economic necessity, rather than actual preference), etc. etc. Don't you think?
You're still going to have people dismissing your faith as 'belief in Jeebus'
That maybe depends on where you live. When I hear about religion being excluded from the public square, I think of the incident a couple of years ago here where a totally innocuous piece of public art was excoriated, vandalized, and removed from the side of a highway because some people felt it might reflect a non-Christian religion. (Which, it's safe to say, wasn't espouse by a single person involved in the planning and execution of the art.) I don't see a lot of people assiduously mocking the dominant faith around here; just some overreaction to any faiths that aren't dominant.
I'm not saying it's a really big problem, Matt, it's just that if you get one sneering prof it becomes Proof that There Are Lions and e-mailed and sermonized all over the place.
If Christianity were suddenly a minority religion, I imagine they'd realize that they weren't really persecuted because Apple iTunes didn't have the Christian rock artist they liked.
I had a funny moment at the Chicago training -- the religious discussion with the Mormon, which was friendly and goodhumored on both sides, had some other people participating, one of whom was a Jehovah's Witness. The Mormon and the Jehovah's Witness started bonding over the fact that they were both members of sects that are often mocked and treated as wackos. I pointed out that a recent poll had revealed that a majority of Americans would refuse to vote for an atheist for public office -- that my religious beliefs were more reviled than either of theirs.
There was a short moment of boggling, and then the conversation continued as before, with no comment on what I had said.
And I was just about to say, in response to 13, that being a member of a minority religion isn't so bad. And it isn't, either, if you don't demand total domination; I get to go to my synagogue in the middle of a cotton field, and it's even possible to get some supplies for my religious holidays here (partly because of lax standards; I pity anyone trying to stay Orthodox in Lubbock).
But as 14 points out, there's really an astonishing civic prejudice against atheists in the U.S., which would hardly be tolerated with respect to actual wacky cults such as Scie/nto/logy. (NB: Possible exaggeration.)
14 -- but that survey does not show that your beliefs are more reviled than theirs; at most it shows that yours are equally reviled to theirs. It is after all very much in the punditry nowadays that William Weld could not be elected president because of his unfortunate beliefs; and I can't see any way in hell that Americans would elect a Jehovah's Witness -- they are way less mainstream than LDS.
13 s/b 'in a place where people are actually persecuted.'
(NB: No exaggeration with respect to Sci/ento/logy, but, well, they're an actual wacky cult.)
In elementary school, I was tormented by other children who sang that "I told the truth" Mormon commercial at me mercilessly. Where do I go to get pandered to?
The exaggeration was this: I claimed that people would be more accepting of a Scientologist running for public office than of an atheist. I don't think this is actually true. No exaggeration about the wacky cult.
(16: William Weld s/b Mitt Romney, and I think the CW is that Romney's problem would be specifically with evangelical GOP base voters, not with 51% of the country.)
It is after all very much in the punditry nowadays that William Weld could not be elected president because of his unfortunate beliefs; and I can't see any way in hell that Americans would elect a Jehovah's Witness -- they are way less mainstream than LDS.
Do you mean Mitt Romney? Because he did get elected governor of Massachusetts, despite his Mormonness. Harry Reid's a Mormon too -- it doesn't seem to be the kiss of death for a political career. (I admit I can't think of any prominent JW's.)
Ah, yes. Sadly, I don't exactly feel comfortable in Utah these days.
My parents are on a road trip thereabouts this month. This time tomorrow, they'll be in Zion. Zion!
LB, I think it will work very differently in a Presidential race. Nevada has a huge LDS population, and those who aren't LDS are generally familiar and comfortable with the religion. Massachusetts is one of those godless, religiously tolerant states.
It's possible that we'll have a gigantic national conversation about the LDS church and collectively decide that it's not that big a deal in the 21st century. But we're already starting to have that conversation, and it's proving to attract pundits more than, for example, Kerry's Catholicness did.
William Weld s/b Mitt Romney
D'oh! Thanks.
Oh, I'm not saying that there isn't prejudice against Mormons -- just that there is less than there is against atheists.
21 -- do you think there aren't any atheist senators or governors? I have to admit I don't have any idea either way -- I guess I'd be kind of surprised if there aren't.
You know, if we want a wacky cult whose undue political influence is tolerated....
(Incidentally, I also have experience with being mocked in elementary school with advertising jingles; this may be an insoluble problem.)
, and it's proving to attract pundits more than, for example, Kerry's Catholicness did.
In part, that's because we dealt with the issue almost 30 years ago.
There are disadvantages to being named Os/ner; being taunted with jingles is not among them. It was not until I cam to NYC and found Osn/er Typewriters (since renamed and moved to a more upscale location, but without the neat-o sign) that I ever saw a business with my name. (The going taunt in Jr. High was "Oozner" -> "Oozy" -> "Uzi" but I don't remember any specifically name-based insults in grade school.)
27: It would seem that there must be (by atheist meaning 'out of the closet atheist', heaven knows what anyone actually believes) but googling 'atheist politician' doesn't produce any names on the first three pages.
One thing that serves to smooth the cognitive dissonance between mainstream Christianity being the majority religion and the idea of it being a persecuted minority is the currently-popular-in-right-wing-circles idea that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. If you accept this idea, then you can say that even though Christianity still represents a dominant cultural influence, this influence is less dominant than it was in the good old days, and this decrease is due to the influence of liberal cultural elites and their sinister multicultural agenda.
Thus we get such idiocy as Bill O'Reilly claiming that stores that have "Happy Hollidays" signs instead of "Merry Christmas" signs are evidence of a War on Christmas. It is a slippery slope argument where the mere acknowledgement that not everyone celebrates the same holidays you is equivalent to ceding the majority status which is the birthright of Christians in a Christian nation.
Yeah I was trying to figure out how you would research such a thing too. Religious politicians tend to advertise their affiliation kind of prominently but I don't think an atheist/unaffiliated politician would do so. (Exception to my rule.) I don't know that Google would really be that helpful, probably the kind of thing where somebody would have to call offices of senators and ask "With what church is Senator X affiliated?" which would be time-consuming, tedious, and possibly creepy.
Religious politicians tend to advertise their affiliation kind of prominently but I don't think an atheist/unaffiliated politician would do so.
Kinda my point here. While I'm sure there are some atheist politicians out there, and even that there are some that aren't lying and claiming to be religious, I'll bet that there are darn few that aren't making an effort to duck the question, so people don't figure it out.
In addition to 32, there is a universal understanding among evangelicals that not all of the 50+% of Americans who claim Christianity are Genuine Christians®. Once you weed out all of the impostures, we really are a minority, &c.
It's not just Christians who are claiming to be persecuted and the majority; it's also men (and the women who advocate for them). All that business about how Title IX is destroying marginal men's sports like wrestling. That wierd burst of news about there being so many better-qualified girls than boys at college admissions time. That perennial favorite over at NRO, the "sissification" of American Culture. Limbaugh's been all over this one for at least a decade.
34 -- is that such a bad thing? I personally find atheists who stridently avow their nonbelief just as annoying as evangelical Chrysanthemums. (Huh? not sure, letting it stet.) And mark this down to wome weird prejudice I guess -- I would find it o.k. for a politician to identify himself, unprompted, as a Lutheran or Mormon or Sikh and would find it mildly off-putting for a politician to identify himself unprompted as an atheist. (Now if he called himself a Bright, well we can talk...) Am I a self-hating atheist?
wome w/b some. Or did I mean "womb"? Well either way I guess.
Michael Newdow, in the Supreme Court pledge case 2 years ago, brought up the point about how atheists are essentially unelectable and are also one of the few remaining groups whom people feel it is ok to unashamedly marginalize. I was really disappointed that the court punted on procedural grounds, I would have loved to see an opinion on the merits. The oral argument is great to hear, they're all so shocked that he was making sense.
atheists who stridently avow their nonbelief
The point here is stridently. Even if it was a non-strident avowal, people would still have a problem with it.
32: Yeah, as a lapsed Catholic who wouldn't get counted as a 'real' Christian by a bunch of evangelicals even if I were better about attending Mass, that pisses me off. To the tune of 'fuck you, you didn't invent this, Assemblies of God, we were being Christians long before you decided you need to have Coke and cookies at communion in your newly renovated basketball gym/house of worship while witnessing about how the Simpsons are an attack on American values and your Hummers are proof that God love you WHACK WHACK WHACK calabat.'
I guess what I am trying to approach in my circumlocutory fashion is this point: if somebody believes in a God and/or a set of religios dicta, it makes sense to me that s/he would think about that enough to make it a core part of his/her identity -- "I am a Zoroastrian." But if the individdle disbelieves, then I don't understand how s/he would place enough weight on that to say "I am an atheist", except in response to somebody asking "What church d'you go to?" And if s/he were to say that in the absense of such a question, it would make me suspicious about his/her sense of priorities. So that's my double standard.
Rethinking my atheism -- perhaps I should found a sect devoted to worship of the CALABAT and to the cooming Calascencion. We will offer our LORD proptiatory sacrifices as we await the last days of the Calatastrophe.
43: I think also, declaring 'I am an atheist' often reads like it's including a sneer: Because I'm smarter than you. On the other hand, I think declaring 'I've been saved' also reads like its a sneer: Because I'm more moral than you.
(N.B. It is perfectly fair to conclude that I dislike just about everyone.)
So much of politics is putting people into categories that unless we all made big strident stinks about not believing, I'd be the Mormon candidate, Cala the Catholic candidate, and Osner the Jewish candidate.
cf: Mitt Romney, whom I suspect of being just about as devout a Mormon as I am.
Maybe that's the problem with the avowed atheist candidate. What category do we put her in?
35: Word. When I pointed out to my "persecuted" Christian friends that they practically run the country, they claim that the people in power aren't the Right Kind of Christian.
Which of the following best describes the religious group you belong to? (Check all that apply.):
[ ] We run the country.
[ ] We are a persecuted minority.
I demand leaders who will re-establish the Calaphate!
Restoring the Calaphate will allow Armsmasher to update Wyndom Lewis' Caliph's Design, which, aside from commissioning buildings and restorations, will remover numerous architecteral philistines from office, and perhaps execute a few.
The restored Calaphate will have to move the capital here.
The restored Calaphate will tolerate only approved music.
Communion will no longer use wafers.
"His shell was peeled for you."
apostropher, I nearly laughed out loud in the library at 54. (Can we come up with a shorthand phrase to express the feeling you get, when you're about to laugh out loud that is less weird and teeny-bopperish than LOL, which I despise?)
Yeah, "HA!" is the superlative of "Heh."
On the Christian thing. There are two groups of Christians who feel "persecuted." One group is the right-wingers that you've all identified, and they're very powerful people. So, it's really ridiculous.
The other group, and I'm sort of a member of it, are the basically moderate, liberal church-goers who feel uncomfortable talking about their religious beliefs and teh ways that religion (and even emotions) drive their policy prescriptions.
My 20's and 30's group at church has been talking about this, how outside of a church group we often feel embarassed about letting other people know that church is important to us. Part of this is related to the fact that we don't want to be confused with the first group who want to shove religion down other people's throats and are really intolerant in their beliefs, e.g., teh lack of acceptance of homosexuals, but part of it is that we genuinely want to be tolerant and sensitive to the beliefs and needs of others in pluralistic society. (I say "needs," because some people are intellectually atheist or agnostic, while others have been scarred by experiences with organized religion.)
We all felt a little bit conflicted about this. We didn't want to impose our beliefs on others, but at the same time, we were tired of having the religious right be the visible expression of Christianity in this country, and we sort of felt as though we needed to shout a little bit louder about our vision of what it means to follow Christ. But, of course, we don't want to offend anyone.
This isn't persecution, of course. The British guy mentioned that in Europe, and especially the UK, you're considered a bit of a weirdo if you're a person of faith (a phrase that I don't care for). I don't think that that's entirely absent in certain regions of the U.S. The Northeast is like that. (Northern California, at least the Central Valley, not so much.)
THis doesn't mean that we want popular culture to cater to us as Christians. In fact, we (or at least most of us) want to be pretty mainstream. We just don;t want our liberal friends to think taht we're strange, because we participate in organized religion. As the young priest said, "when you have a dog collar on, people suddenly stop swearing around you, when really you're no different."
One of my friends did talk about the way that it took her grad student friends to appreciate that she could be normal and not only believe in God but be actively involved in her parish.
Do you mean Mitt Romney? Because he did get elected governor of Massachusetts, despite his Mormonness.
Because in massachusetts we don't know what a mormon even is. we think it's like a baptist, or a methodist, only kind of quaint, and with polygamy.
we think it's like a baptist
I once had a religious studies professor explain hare Krishnas as "Southern Baptist Hindus."
My son came to the office on take your child to work day, and he ended up looking up the Maryland constitution's provision on religious freedom:
That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.
Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.
Strangely comprehensive.
In 59 all of teh tehs should be "the" and "taht" should be "that." Obviously.
Insert "a while" after "friends" and before "to appreciate" in the last sentence.
Insert "a while" after "friends" and before "to appreciate" in the last sentence.
What am I, your secretary?
re: "The British guy mentioned that in Europe, and especially the UK, you're considered a bit of a weirdo if you're a person of faith (a phrase that I don't care for)."
Yeah, that's largely true. I largely share that belief, for that matter.
I used to work for a religious college -- part-time non-academic stuff -- and i) I greatly admired the moral stance many of the people there took, these were the kind of people who spent their summer vacations riding with aid convoys in the Congo at the height of the civil war and ii) still couldn't get my head round the religious elements of their belief system, although I could recognize that their moral stance came in part from that belief system.
I'm guessing many non-extremist Muslims would echo the sentiments expressed by BG in 59.
59: Yeah, it's hard, because moderates are hard to rally around, at least to the extent that when most of the religious dialogues centers around extremism, who rallies around the people saying "Hey, wait, live and let live" instead of "burn teh witches!"
