In a few hours, I am headed out the door on a long trip into my home state of Texas (I am a prodigal Texan) to visit several campuses in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (see a new trend story here) on behalf of the journalism program that I lead here in Washington, D.C.
The big event during the trip is the CCCU’s global forum on Christian higher education, which may or may not draw press attention.The forum will include a visit by the Soulforce Equality Ride bus, which will almost certainly draw press attention. I hope to have another chat with the Rev. Mel White.
I will spend several days on the long and flat highways of the state so I, for one, am hoping that I have my timing right for some bluebonnets (see photo). The divine Ms. M and young master Daniel (and perhaps even the Rt. Rev. LeBlanc) will, I hope, keep things buzzing during the next week or so because my Internet access may be iffy, other than during the Dallas forum.
But before I go I wanted to draw a connection between three very different stories in three very different publications that all point, in a way, to the very same theme that comes up quite frequently at this site.
So click here for the omnipresent Democratic strategist Amy Sullivan, writing in Washington Monthy about the factors that may, sooner rather than later, cause many evangelical Protestants to bolt the Republican Party.
Then click here to skip over to the Weekly Standard website to read Allan Carlson’s sobering “Social conservatives and the GOP: Can this marriage be saved?”
Wait! Before you settle in and read those two articles, read this quotation and ask yourself this question: Who wrote the following, Carlson or Sullivan?
… (All) is not well within the existing Republican coalition. Indeed, there are other indicators that the Republican party has done relatively little to help traditional families, and may in fact be contributing to their new indentured status. Certainly at the level of net incomes, the one-earner family today is worse off than it was thirty years ago, when the GOP began to claim the pro-family banner. Specifically, the median income of married-couple families, with the wife not in the paid labor force, was $40,100 in 2002, less than it had been in 1970 ($40,785) when inflation is taken into account. In contrast, the real earnings of two-income married couple families rose by 35 percent over the same years (to nearly $73,000). Put another way, families have been able to get ahead only by becoming “nontraditional” and sending mother to work or forgoing children altogether. As the Maternalists had warned, eliminating America’s “family wage” system would drive male wages down and severely handicap the one-income home. So it has happened.
Despite the economic pressures, though, such families are not extinct. They still form core social conservative constituencies such as home schooling families and families with four or more children. But again, they have little to show from the years of the Republican alliance.
Can you guess? I point this out simply to note the ongoing political irony of our age. The middle class, for the most part, continues to vote (some would say against its economic interests) for the Republican Party — primarily because of moral and social issues. Meanwhile, a rising percentage of the rich, especially along the coasts, has been voting (against its economic interests) for the Democratic Party — primarily because of moral and social issues.
No matter what some people say, these issues are not going away. To see why, click here and read Janet Hook’s “Right Is Might for GOP’s Aspirants” in the Los Angeles Times.
My question remains the same: Will editors in top-flight newsrooms allow their religion-beat specialists to help cover this story?
They should.
 | Posted at 8:19 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (15) |
March 26, 2006, at 10:14 am
Good luck on the bluebonnets; we just had a late freeze here in Fort Worth/Dallas; maybe the hill country escaped. Your best bet will be the farming country east of Austin.
I am one of those people who generally fares better economically under Democrats, but generally votes Republican due to, yes, abortion. While I have certainly voted for Dems, even pro-choice Dems, under specific circumstances, the murder of unborn children trumps my bank account in the grand scheme of things.
March 26, 2006, at 12:01 pm
I’m one of those people would generally fares better economically under Republicans, but my wife and I vote for Democrats because of social issues. We aren’t single-issue voters and we don’t agree with many Democrats on abortion. But abotion isn’t the only issue for people of faith. If you are concerned about poverty, the death penalty, just war, a foreign policy based on human rights, a humane immigration policy, and policies which promote toleance and diversity, we put our economic needs aside and vote for Democrats.
March 26, 2006, at 6:31 pm
If you visit the Texas Tech campus, then give greetings to my home city! You won’t see any bluebonnets there, but hey, it’s cotton country!
“The eyes of Texas are upon you (me)… ” (oops, wrong school song!)
From a Texan in exile in the Deep South …
March 26, 2006, at 6:44 pm
I’m not convinced that social interests trump economic. I know rich people who vote Democratic because they think GOP deficit spending will wreck the whole economy. And there are middle-class small business owners who see Democrats as meddlers who drive up the costs of doing business (with taxes, licensing, regulations, minimum wage, etc), and therefore vote Republican.
March 26, 2006, at 8:00 pm
I fare better under Democrats because I want my taxes substantially raised and those evil Republicans won’t do it because they just want to help businesses (including mine) and the Dems are better at convincing everyone that failure to spend money on government programs = “hate” and I’m *totally* sold on that notion.
And obviously, helping people in the U.S. illegally to continue to be economically (and physically) exploited is clearly God’s will, so I have to oppose the GOP’s ridiculous notion of upholding immigration laws and defending the borders. (Those elderly white people in that party are SO old fashioned and not “with it”!)
Terry, given the responses and the rather tortured way you backed into religion here, I think this posting was entirely too political - despite the addition of the mocking “Jesusland” map, which does in fact mention Jesus - and only slightly relevant to the GR mission. Just my opinion. Not that I don’t mind wading into politics, as you can see.
March 27, 2006, at 8:15 am
Strange I *am* concerned about poverty, the death penalty, just war, a foreign policy based on human rights, and a humane immigration policy, etc. and for all those reasons I vote Republican. I suppose I just disagree what positions on those issues are most compatible with Christian values. I think the policies of the Democratic party are bad for the poor, bad for immigrants, bad for the environment, bad for peace and justice around the world and here at home.
Of course, I perfectly understand how a Christian could come to different conclusions about these things. Scripture doesn’t tell us, for instance, what a good immigration policy looks like, what the ideal tax rate is, or the best way to address problems like Islamic extremism and terrorism. Even on poverty, Christians will obviously disagree on the best way to address the issue. That’s certainly not new. There have been Christians on both sides of nearly every issue from the get-go. And most of the time (though, admittedly, not every time) those Christians have been acting out of a sincere desire to do what is good and right.
I think it would be healthy for Christians in both parties to realize that even those who disagree with them might be acting out of a sincere commitment to Christian values. This requires recognizing the difference between scriptural values and policy prescriptions. The first we should, as followers of Christ, largely agree on. The later, however, we are, as followers of Christ, free to disagree about—and remain good Christians.
Implying (as so many on both sides of the political divide often do) that somehow the opposing party is opposed to Christian values doesn’t help. Accusing the other side of not caring for the poor (or, alternately, the unborn) is simply arrogance and pride.
March 27, 2006, at 9:09 am
Historically, most of America’s big political movements (and parties) have been fueled by moral ideas and moral reform — albeit of very different types. Why is it so hard to believe that the same thing is still true?
March 27, 2006, at 11:04 am
I agree completely.
March 27, 2006, at 11:46 pm
bluebonnets now blooming all over central Texas, not to mention indian paintbrush, fire wheel, evening primrose, vervain, redbuds, pears, peaches, dogwoods, wysteria. I could go on. They are especially abundant on the road from Austin to Houston and we are just now getting a little drink of water for them. Bring camera and antihistamine.
March 28, 2006, at 10:31 am
Which party dogmatized Roe v. Wade and purged all dissenters? Which party has this disingenuous incoherence as a “plank” in its “platform”—
TMatt has been all over this before…
March 28, 2006, at 4:07 pm
Erik, that was an excellent piece; one of the best I’ve seen. Except that I’m a little uncomfortable with your statement about the unborn, so I think dk has a point. But presumably you were referring about the way in which right-wingers impugn the motives of others without talking to them.
Hope Terry is blessed by being in the Promised Land … .
March 28, 2006, at 4:20 pm
I get so weary of listening to y’all belly-ache about the religious “left”. This is virtually a non-existent category in the evangelical world in which I live. How I wish there really was one, and one that was actually listened to, instead of ridiculed, denounced, and dumped upon. You people are willing to go to the wall to protect a foetus and look the other way as thousands of real, live human beings die in our godly, born-again president’s war in Iraq and millions more are threatened by the effects of global warming which Time top 25 evangelicals like Dobson, Colson, and Richard Land don’t think is a problem. I will take any day that much-maligned Democratic platform plank cited just above my post over the dribble you offer us as a “solution” to the abortion question. I imagine you will love living in South Dakota, and even more so in an America remade by the religious right in the same mold.
March 29, 2006, at 12:18 am
Julia -
Which road from Austin? 71 or 290? I knew if there were any it would be out that way!
Sorry to interrupt this scintilatting political…well, I won’t say debate, but wildflowers are serious business in Texas and we are deprived in Fort Worth/Dallas (darn late freeze). Let’s see… leave after Mass Sunday, drive south, then east…get a cheap motel, take off work on Monday… this is do-able.
Oh, and DDick: you know from my earlier post that I will go to wall to protect an unborn child, but how do you know what I think about the war in Iraq? Or poverty issues? Or global warming? I will confess to a certain fondness for South Dakota, mostly the southwest corner, though.
March 30, 2006, at 7:35 am
Yes, Herb, I did mean those on the right who like to broadbrush the left with the “not caring for the unborn” label. Positions on abortion can be complicated, and we must tread carefully.
As for Deadeye Dick’s comment about the religious left being “virtually a non-existent category in the evangelical world in which [he] live[s],” all I can say is that it exists where we are, and just because he doesn’t see it doesn’t mean we can ignore it.
The moral justification for the war in Iraq is ground well-tread. We disagree. As many do over the consequences and causes of global warming, etc. Ignoring the fact that there are significant differences of opinion on these issues and acting as though there is a clear moral and political position on these issues (as Deadeye does) is precisely the problem. The anger and arrogance in his post is clear—and unhelpful. There is real lack of engagement by some on the left to the arguments made by those on the right who disagree with them. He (and others) seems to think that expressing moral superiority is enough to qualify as an argument. The same often happens of the right, over different issues. This is why politics is so vicious and depressing these days.
March 30, 2006, at 9:53 pm
Amen, Erik. We are constantly ripping the motives of other people to shreds, as if we knew what they were. There are sure a lot of omniscient people around. For my part, I am very glad that God has not made me the judge, a job which I think He is very capable of carrying out Himself.