Can I get an amen?
Last weekend I watched a fantastic documentary on the 1994 Senate race in Virginia between Oliver North-R and Chuck Robb-D (inc). "A Perfect Candidate" was blessed to get just about the most interesting match up in the most interesting election in the last 50 years and get inside access to North's campaign.
On the one hand you had Ollie running as the bad boy turned good. He of course brought in all the baggage from those televised Congressional Hearings on the Iran Contra scandal and the infamous cover of Time where he's in his Marine greens and swearing on the bible with the military stiffness of a Marine salute. Because of all this Virginia's senior senator John Warner-R endorsed a third party moderate Republican who took 12% of the vote, Minority Leader Bob Dole refused to endorse or get the NRSC behind him, and John McCain took his shots at North too (that's no surprise now, but McCain was then considered an honorable GOPer). However, he ran as a Christian conservative who attributed his survival during that time to his faith in God. The documentary also shows us that Ollie is a fantastic campaigner, does a good job of connecting with people and has superior politician skills. He was THE perfect candidate for Virginia '94, except...
On the other hand you had incumbent Democrat Chuck Robb. Chuck was the golden boy of Virginia politics. Former Army officer, LBJ's son in law, his views and low key demeanor were perfect for the southern democrats who ran Virginia between the Civil war and 1994, he easily won a term as Governor in the 80's and had another easy election to the Senate in 1988. He had often been referred to as a serious Presidential contender. Then he got caught up, or pants down, with Playboy cover girl Tai Collins and half a dozen guys he used to party with in Virginia Beach were serving hard time for cocaine dealings. He denied the cocaine stuff and denied he ever saw it being done - which was pretty implausible, but had to eat the Collins allegations whole hog. Robb had gone from boyscout to cocaine sniffing, playboy philandering no-goodnic, and that dog don't hunt in Virginia.
In the end Robb won by 3 points, mainly because former Gov Doug Wilder dropped his independent campaign at Clinton's urging. What we saw in the documentary is that Clinton is the BEST when it comes to the stump. You also got a shot of current gov Mark Warner posing with Robb, Clinton and Wilder.
Religion played a prominent role for both candidates. You saw Ollie campaigning at church and giving his testimonial which was very powerful. His campaign was clearly fueled by the enthusiasm of the religious right. You even saw Robb at a black church listening to another powerful sermon encouraging everyone to be sure to vote. While you didn't get to see Robb's speech, it was assumed he had just addressed the congregation. This being 1994, one of the big stories was the emergence of the religious right as a political force. However, this campaign showed that religion was a tool for both parties.
Today, this is no longer true. The GOP is still clearly tied up with the faithful. However the Dems have taken a humanistic and in many cases anti-religious bent. Since 1994 the dems and liberals have painted the mixture of faith and politics as something to by abhorred and avoided at all costs. Pre-1994, religion was just another slight positive for them and part of the typical mix of a successful campaign.
Now many of my conservative friends who follow the Sean Hannity model of argument would just declare that liberals are hypocrites and leave it at that. I for one hate the debate that merely strives to call your opponent a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is an amoral sin. It does not discern motives and puts people who once favored coffee but now drink tea in with slave owners who later converted their practices.
Let's give liberals some credit. After 1994 they consciously chose to castigate religion in the belief that more people would be turned off rather than attracted by embracing morality as a political issue. There is certainly some validity to this strategy. Much or our country, pop culture, schools, and cities are quite secular and the mention of God or Jesus would seem awkward and out of place. An argument stating that religion had no place in politics may have been very well received by the vast middle. While this message is reasonable, it would not have generated volunteer armies or donations.
But this isn't the tact of the current liberal message - the message is one of hostility towards religion. Bible thumpers are little more than in-bred, unsophisticated, simpleton hicks. This message certainly fires up the secular elite and encourages their donations and volunteers - but it is also an extremely offensive message to the vast middle. Thus, it is an incredibly stupid message.
Republicans get the best of both worlds - lots of volunteers and donations AND sympathy from unattached voters who react negatively to hostile messages. And oh by the way, there is much more man power and dollars in the religious camp then there is in the secular camp.
The dems sort of got it after the 2004 election. Not the liberals mind you, but the elected leadership did. This partial enlightenment lead to the attempt to link religious values beyond life and morality issues and expand the definition to encompass the welfare state support for the poor. This works for your more liberal Catholics, Unitarians, and old line protestants. However, for the energized faithful, the priorities tend to go Faith first, personal morality second, alleviation of poverty third. Most faithful will say it is better to be moral and poor than immoral and rich.
This has lead to some awkward positioning. Hillary Clinton has pushed this message but she lacks credibility. Too bad for her, but the Clinton name is first and foremost associated with sexual promiscuity. Nancy Pelosi has also tried, but being a San Francisco liberal and all the baggage that implies really undercuts the message. Harry Reid, being a liberal catholic, is actually a pretty good messenger on this subject. Unfortunately for him he mostly speaks for a senate caucus that is best known for filibustering judges for being good Catholics.
This strategy sort of makes sense. It addresses the tertiary concerns of the faithful, but it is acceptable to the vast middle and shows a level of acceptance and understanding to the few remaining liberal faithful. It also exposes a GOP weakness amongst the faithful which is the lack of willingness to expand government to address poverty.
Sadly for the democrats, the secular elite are far more vocal and effective and are under cutting religion as a whole thus making the poverty focus sound hollow. While the strategy paints an emphatic hue on the liberals, it also spot lights their unpopular 'solutions' such as welfare, public housing, and soft on crime approach.
The dems are stuck. Republicans can easily embrace religion, and even if they don't they are not considered hostile. Whereas the dems have a confusing message that either seems hostile or disingenuous. Until the Dems make peace with religion or succeed in converting the country to vast secularism - advantage GOP.
On the one hand you had Ollie running as the bad boy turned good. He of course brought in all the baggage from those televised Congressional Hearings on the Iran Contra scandal and the infamous cover of Time where he's in his Marine greens and swearing on the bible with the military stiffness of a Marine salute. Because of all this Virginia's senior senator John Warner-R endorsed a third party moderate Republican who took 12% of the vote, Minority Leader Bob Dole refused to endorse or get the NRSC behind him, and John McCain took his shots at North too (that's no surprise now, but McCain was then considered an honorable GOPer). However, he ran as a Christian conservative who attributed his survival during that time to his faith in God. The documentary also shows us that Ollie is a fantastic campaigner, does a good job of connecting with people and has superior politician skills. He was THE perfect candidate for Virginia '94, except...
On the other hand you had incumbent Democrat Chuck Robb. Chuck was the golden boy of Virginia politics. Former Army officer, LBJ's son in law, his views and low key demeanor were perfect for the southern democrats who ran Virginia between the Civil war and 1994, he easily won a term as Governor in the 80's and had another easy election to the Senate in 1988. He had often been referred to as a serious Presidential contender. Then he got caught up, or pants down, with Playboy cover girl Tai Collins and half a dozen guys he used to party with in Virginia Beach were serving hard time for cocaine dealings. He denied the cocaine stuff and denied he ever saw it being done - which was pretty implausible, but had to eat the Collins allegations whole hog. Robb had gone from boyscout to cocaine sniffing, playboy philandering no-goodnic, and that dog don't hunt in Virginia.
In the end Robb won by 3 points, mainly because former Gov Doug Wilder dropped his independent campaign at Clinton's urging. What we saw in the documentary is that Clinton is the BEST when it comes to the stump. You also got a shot of current gov Mark Warner posing with Robb, Clinton and Wilder.
Religion played a prominent role for both candidates. You saw Ollie campaigning at church and giving his testimonial which was very powerful. His campaign was clearly fueled by the enthusiasm of the religious right. You even saw Robb at a black church listening to another powerful sermon encouraging everyone to be sure to vote. While you didn't get to see Robb's speech, it was assumed he had just addressed the congregation. This being 1994, one of the big stories was the emergence of the religious right as a political force. However, this campaign showed that religion was a tool for both parties.
Today, this is no longer true. The GOP is still clearly tied up with the faithful. However the Dems have taken a humanistic and in many cases anti-religious bent. Since 1994 the dems and liberals have painted the mixture of faith and politics as something to by abhorred and avoided at all costs. Pre-1994, religion was just another slight positive for them and part of the typical mix of a successful campaign.
Now many of my conservative friends who follow the Sean Hannity model of argument would just declare that liberals are hypocrites and leave it at that. I for one hate the debate that merely strives to call your opponent a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is an amoral sin. It does not discern motives and puts people who once favored coffee but now drink tea in with slave owners who later converted their practices.
Let's give liberals some credit. After 1994 they consciously chose to castigate religion in the belief that more people would be turned off rather than attracted by embracing morality as a political issue. There is certainly some validity to this strategy. Much or our country, pop culture, schools, and cities are quite secular and the mention of God or Jesus would seem awkward and out of place. An argument stating that religion had no place in politics may have been very well received by the vast middle. While this message is reasonable, it would not have generated volunteer armies or donations.
But this isn't the tact of the current liberal message - the message is one of hostility towards religion. Bible thumpers are little more than in-bred, unsophisticated, simpleton hicks. This message certainly fires up the secular elite and encourages their donations and volunteers - but it is also an extremely offensive message to the vast middle. Thus, it is an incredibly stupid message.
Republicans get the best of both worlds - lots of volunteers and donations AND sympathy from unattached voters who react negatively to hostile messages. And oh by the way, there is much more man power and dollars in the religious camp then there is in the secular camp.
The dems sort of got it after the 2004 election. Not the liberals mind you, but the elected leadership did. This partial enlightenment lead to the attempt to link religious values beyond life and morality issues and expand the definition to encompass the welfare state support for the poor. This works for your more liberal Catholics, Unitarians, and old line protestants. However, for the energized faithful, the priorities tend to go Faith first, personal morality second, alleviation of poverty third. Most faithful will say it is better to be moral and poor than immoral and rich.
This has lead to some awkward positioning. Hillary Clinton has pushed this message but she lacks credibility. Too bad for her, but the Clinton name is first and foremost associated with sexual promiscuity. Nancy Pelosi has also tried, but being a San Francisco liberal and all the baggage that implies really undercuts the message. Harry Reid, being a liberal catholic, is actually a pretty good messenger on this subject. Unfortunately for him he mostly speaks for a senate caucus that is best known for filibustering judges for being good Catholics.
This strategy sort of makes sense. It addresses the tertiary concerns of the faithful, but it is acceptable to the vast middle and shows a level of acceptance and understanding to the few remaining liberal faithful. It also exposes a GOP weakness amongst the faithful which is the lack of willingness to expand government to address poverty.
Sadly for the democrats, the secular elite are far more vocal and effective and are under cutting religion as a whole thus making the poverty focus sound hollow. While the strategy paints an emphatic hue on the liberals, it also spot lights their unpopular 'solutions' such as welfare, public housing, and soft on crime approach.
The dems are stuck. Republicans can easily embrace religion, and even if they don't they are not considered hostile. Whereas the dems have a confusing message that either seems hostile or disingenuous. Until the Dems make peace with religion or succeed in converting the country to vast secularism - advantage GOP.
posted by Bill Gilles | 7:20 AM
2 Comments:
Thursday night, Keegans. You, me, Franklin, Marty. Victory is ours.
ABS
Can I get an update, maybe a blogdodge, or a picture of maggie, something, anything, this updating every week thing is going to drive me crazy. Thou Shalt Reward Thou Readers With Regular Stuff.
Post a Comment
<< Home