The LA Times:
Public allegiance to the Republican Party has plunged during George W. Bush's presidency, as attitudes have edged away from some of the conservative values that fueled GOP political victories, a major survey has found.The survey, by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found a "dramatic shift" in political party identification since 2002, when Republicans and Democrats were at rough parity. Now, 50% of those surveyed identified with or leaned toward Democrats, whereas 35% aligned with Republicans.
What's more, the survey found, public attitudes are drifting toward Democrats' values: Support for government aid to the disadvantaged has grown since the mid-1990s, skepticism about the use of military force has increased and support for traditional family values has decreased.
The trend is clear, the question is whether this is just temporary or whether the trend will sustain.
... Republicans fear the poll signals a clear end to an era of GOP successes that began with President Reagan's election in 1980, saw the party take control of Capitol Hill in 1994 and helped elect Bush twice."There are cycles in history where one party or one movement ascends for a while and then it sows the seeds of its own self-destruction," said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative analyst and author of the 2006 book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."
Bartlett added, "It's clear we have come to an end of a Republican conservative era."
The critical issue here is whether Democrats in office and Democratic activists can act appropriately to turn this into a lasting transformation of American politics for the Common Good. Today's strong vote in favor of fully funding the Iraq War through an enddate of 2008 will be the kind of strong and informed action necessary to show American's they did the right thing in electing a Democratic Congress.
Meanwhile, the grassroots must continue to innovate, organize, and champion the true values of Progressivism which can help guide the moral direction of the nation, and which are necessary to achieve greater heights of worldwide leadership in the 21st Century.
"As approval ratings for The Decider tumble to the low to mid-thirties (a CBS poll on Jan. 22, 2007 even dropped his approval rating down to 28 percent), is there any reason to think that they can drop much further, into the low twenties or even down to the teens?
Probably not.
Even if The Decider were to sprout horns, fangs, and a forked tail, his True Believers would remain convinced that he is the Chosen One.
The absolute floor for his support is approximately 30 percent, the carefully assembled Rovian Hard Core. Here is why:
--35 percent of Americans (and 67 percent of Republicans) still think that invading and occupying Iraq was a good idea
--35 percent approve of the use of torture against insurgent or terrorist suspects
--67 percent (or even 74 percent, depending on the poll) of Republicans think that Bush's troop "surge" to escalate the war in Iraq is a good idea
--30 percent of Americans think that Big Business has the right amount of influence (22 percent) or too little influence (8 percent) on the Bush Administration
--29 percent disapprove of interracial marriage
--32 percent consider themselves to be "born-again" Christians
--25 percent think that the Rapture/Second Coming will occur in 2007
--24 percent think that automatic assault weapons should continue to be sold to the public
--20 percent (and 81 percent of evangelical fundamentalists) believe the creationists' literalist dogma that God created the entire cosmos 6,000 years ago
--37 percent think that the teaching of creationism (or the latest version, Intelligent Design) should replace the teaching of evolution
--17 percent think that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest
--39 percent admit to harboring prejudice against Muslims
--27 percent of Illinois voters cast ballots for the certifiably extremist Alan Keyes rather than for Barack Obama in 2004
--74 percent (yes--three-fourths!) of Republican voters and an astonishing 84 percent of Republican members of Congress deny that human release of greenhouse gases causes global warming
These polls reflect what Karl Rove has spent his life creating: a rock-solid base of credulous gun-totin', SUV-drivin', Bible-thumpin', Rapture-awaitin', ignorance-embracin', global-warming-denyin', evolution-dismissin', science-rejectin', contraception-and-abortion-rights-opposin', tolerance-refusin', gay-bashin', Constitution-shreddin', civil rights-denyin', Bill-of-Rights-ignorin', anti-race-mixin', Confederate-flag-displayin', Fox-News-believin', Rush-Limbaugh-admirin', foreigner-despisin', Muslim-demonizin', militia-joinin', perpetual-war-lovin', torture-approvin', war-and-oil-profit-cheerin', robber-baron-servin', Fuehrer-enablin' social conservatives.
These poll numbers largely, though not perfectly, overlap. Some abortion foes will feel even more strongly about the loss of life resulting from the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some gun enthusiasts will feel strongly about protecting the environment and curbing global warming. Some viewers of the Foxist Noise Channel will have doubts about skewing economic and tax policies primarily for the benefit of big business and the wealthiest one percent.
All the same, no matter what blunders he makes, The Decider will still have an unshakeable Rovian Base approving of his actions. It is clearly possible for Rove and the Foxist Noise machine to fool 30 percent of the people 100 percent of the time. They can also fool an additional 5 percent of the voting public almost all of the time.
They have faith, you see, in the righteousness of his cause.
However, Rove's effort to apply his Texas-based political formula of divide-and-rule to the whole country has left fully 65 percent of the population within the reality-based universe.
The 18th century Enlightenment philosopher and deist Voltaire once wrote in a letter:
"I always made one prayer to God, which is extremely short. Here it is: 'O my God, make our enemies quite ridiculous!' God granted it."
Thanks to Karl Rove, the same prayer seems to have been answered today for the pragmatists and progressives in the reality-based community.
Of course, in some areas the unreachable Rovian Hard Core will amount to more than a majority. But even in the Deep South, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, and Idaho there will be the odd Congressional seat or local urban election that can be competitive for a Democratic pragmatist or even a progressive. Consider, for example, Rocky Anderson, the progressive mayor of Salt Lake City. And in the rest of the country there are increasingly bright prospects for Democratic sweeps.
Karl Rove has ensured that the Republican Party has adopted the values and antebellum outlook of the Deep South, thereby turning it into more of a regional party than a national one. Rove has handed pragmatists and progressives a historic opportunity elsewhere.
Can they seize it? Can they organize the reality-based community--fully 65 percent of the voting public?"
However, I think the rising generation will be less conservative as a whole, despite how carefully they were raised. Too many of them have gay friends, too many know a wounded but ignored veteran not to have questions, and it is up to the local Democratic committees to pick off the crumbling edges of the hare core constituencies voter by voter.
Of course, that assumes the Democrats get their story together in a coherent and timely fashion. That means the successful presentation of a Democratic philosophy (or story) of governance and public life which counters the dominant Republican philosophy of jungle capitalism, social Darwinism, authoritarian leadership, and Life as a Struggle with the affluent being self-evidently beloved of God and obviously superior to the rest of humanity. That particular philosophy has been termed Hobbesian, and is comfortably historic so folks are used to it. The Democrats (like our Founding Fathers) had a viewpoint based more on Locke than Hobbes, and it still, after 230 years, represents change and requires of people that they behave like adults, not children, in their political life.
Or sometimes it's stupidity. I remember reading how Americans responded to knowledge polls and agreed to answers like "Consumer Reports is the government agency whose approval sticker you see on meat packages at your grocery store."
Nice posting. I loved the statistics.
Even Nixon was socially progressive, intelligent, and strategically adept, though in the end too paranoid and criminal to survive.
Reagan had a certain grace and capacity to inspire--at least until he went over the Iran-Contra edge.
Gerald Ford was a sensible human being.
Even Goldwater was at his core a tolerant human being who wanted limited government.
Why on earth has the Republican Party done this to itself--this lurch to delusion, authoritarianism, and medieval, willful ignorance?
Beats me, and I used to be a Republican.
We can only encourage them in their mad dash for the cliff, and push... hard.
buh, bye... you won't be missed.
I wish this were a joke, but it is not. This is what they were saying.
There is clearly room for issue-by-issue collaboration between progressive Democrats and NAE members who share similar concerns.
No one is forcing Dobson and his Focus on the Family acolytes to be compassionate and inclusive toward gays and lesbians, and no one is forcing anyone in Dobson's family to have an abortion or accept any benefits from stem cell research. No one is forcing Dobson to vote for a Democrat. And no one will expect him ever to adopt a "live and let live" approach to others. But, fortunately, Dobson and his followers are a declining minority who will remain unable to impose their minority, premodern views on everyone else.
The Pew Study cited here by Josh and above by Lowell demonstrates to the Dobsons, Jerry Falwells, and Pat Robertsons that they are losing ground, and of course they are angry. For more insight, we should go to Prof. Robert Altemeyer's "Right Wing Authoritarianism" and John Dean's "Conservatives without a Conscience." (Both, by the way, were participating today in a very interesting thread over at DailyKos.com. Check out the Mid-Day Thread if it is still there.)
There does seem to be a clear link between religious fanaticism and authoritarianism. I suspect that here lies the main reason that Rudy Giuliani is doing so well in the polls even among those on the Religious Right. They may not share his personal values, but they are willing to fall in step behind his authoritarian personality.
This religious fanatic-authoritarian link would probably be worth a book in itself. Remember what the German soldiers had inscribed on their belt buckles in World War II as they set out to conquer the world for Hitler: "Gott Mit Uns" (God is with us). And consider the Jihadists who fully expect to go to heaven if they die as martyrs for their political cause.
You have a good point. One needs to be careful about evidence, as well as about offending the middle.
Could you provide a good link to your reference to the "ACLU ripping some student for wearing a tiny cross around her neck?" I did a GOOGLE search, but it just came up with some bombast from Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and no verifiable story providing any context. I, for one, am deeply skeptical about anything that Bill O'Reilly says, and I certainly wouldn't accept at face value his take on any alleged "fact." In the reality-based community we should be especially careful about such "facts."
I doubt that either the reality-based or the faith-based communities will win many converts from the other side. But I do think that we are seeing a gradual generation-by-generation change. Europe seems to be ahead of the U.S. in the transformation. Perhaps that is what happens after a century of horrendous conflict, including two World Wars, in which each participant claimed that God was on its side.
Here is a link to some interesting polling data from Harris and Pew to compare what is happening in Europe and in the U.S.
The Pew data on U.S. "Generation Nexters" may reveal a trendline: 20 percent consider themselves "no religion/atheist/agnostic" and 63 percent accept the scientific evidence behind evolution. Today in the UK only 35 percent of the overall population considers itself religious. In France, it is only 27 percent. I recently lived for a few years in a European country in which there are more self-described athiests/agnostics than regular church-goers.
I personally see no contradiction between belief in a Supreme Being and an acceptance of the scientific method to reveal underlying laws of nature. Hard-line atheists and evangelical literalists seem to be compelled to argue about such things, but even the Vatican has accepted the validity of the science behind evolution.
The Founders, many of whom (like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin) were deists who rejected the theological trappings of organized religion, gave us a wisely crafted foundation of religious freedom, which goes hand-in-hand with a separation of church and state. We have been given a secular, but religiously tolerant republic.
Can we preserve it from the fundamentalists and theocrats?
It's a section of a website that overall is dedicated to discussing religious differences, and it talks here about attempts to study, e.g., prejudice and its correlation with religiousness.
I was struck by the discussion of Allport, the psychologist, who set up two general categories of religious belief:
I Intrinsic religious belief:
views God as loving, supportive, forgiving.
views each person as unique and special.
inclusive in vision; views all people as their neighbors
views death positively
looks upon religion as a search for truth
numerically small
exhibit low levels of prejudice.II Extrinsic religious belief:
views God as stern, vindictive and punitive.
views people in terms of social categories: sex, age, status.
exclusionist in vision; views their in-group as their neighbors
views death negatively
looks upon religion for its utilitarian value, as a means to other ends.
***
Personally, I have experienced no correlation between moral character and formal religious belief, e.g., church going. I know many very good and very bad people in and out of the formal religion camp. I do sometimes find that people hung up on all the rules of a religion miss the focus of what the religion is supposed to be about.
There's another study mentioned on that site whose conclusion is:
+People who never attended church exhibited a low level of prejudice.
+The most highly prejudiced individuals were those who went to church once or twice a month.
+Those who went to church 11 or more times a month were the least prejudiced of all.
I'm wandering here, but I just wanted to make the argument that many of the people I've most admired for their kindness were spiritual people who had just concluded that it did not make sense going to a church that preached it had a monopoly on the truth when the main causal factor behind a person's formal religious beliefs were what their parents beliefs were. The odds of becoming southern Baptist having been raised in Bejing are pretty low. I have a serious problem when someone says that, e.g., Religion A is the only way to salvation. So I look for in a person a spiritual nature that is not necessarily what other people define as "religious."
And I think some credence has to be given to the Richard Dawkins view that he is saddened when people say it is only fear of hell that makes people behave well.
The religious "foundation" is simply the Judeo-Christian ethics our country was founded upon and upon which most of our laws are predicated. There's a great tour in D.C. now that goes around the city and points out the importance of faith in the development of our country. I'm still looking for the specifics to post.
Again, I don't equate faith with churchgoing, or ethics with either. That's just my experience. I could cite lots of personal examples where faith, churchgoing, and ethics did not match. I had an aunt who was a very good person, would never harm a fly, and prayed often, but never went to church. She didn't see the point. That's an old philosophy one can trace to the Gnostics (and probably as far back as history goes), who believed the link to God was from the self and was personal. The debate between those who follow institution-directed religion, and inner directed religion, has been going on forever. So perhaps Allport was not even in the ballpark in terms of the questions he should have been asking. (Allport is a famous academic; I'm pretty sure you can find the specifics on line.)
But to me faith can, and must be, instructed by evidence. I just don't buy the notion that "I believe it and therefore it's true." Our religious literature contains earthly prejudices and falsifications. Here's an example. One of the primary reasons given against ordaining women is a verse from St. Paul, that women should keep silent in church. The argument against it that it is a later insertion by someone with an ax to grind. I find that pretty convincing. The "silence" verse doesn't fit in the chapter, and the earliest biblical manuscripts show that verse in different places, suggesting it was being inserted after the fact and was not part of the original letter. There are other examples that can be cited about textual manipulation to disfavor women. (It is well known among academics that lots of the canon attributed to Paul were forgeries.)
Also, if we were created in God's image, the traditional Christian view, we're supposed to think. (Jesus taught in parables, after all, and many are hard to interpret.) Otherwise, we're just parrots. In fact, one of the great myths of Christian history is that Christianity was doctrinally set as soon as the apostles started teaching. In fact, Peter and Paul couldn't even agree whether the Gentiles were to be taught. The ideas behind the Trinity were not settled for many years. There was a huge contest of ideas -- unfortunately, the majority leaders ordered the documents representing the minority views destroyed. (Luckily, not all of them were and some have been recovered.)
And quite frankly, I don't want to be part of a religion that treats women or any class in an inferior way, and many of the mainstream religions do. I really don't need an academic study to inform me that some Christian denominations (and other major religions), e.g., treat women like second class citizens. I'll take the post-death consequences of my belief. My hunch is that whatever, whomever was behind the universe's creation (if there was such a creator) wants everyone treated fairly.
I, too, have found no connection between ethical behavior and religious belief. Of course, we would probably have to define out terms, i.e., exactly what is "ethical" behavior. But that is a lengthy thread for another time and place. I have found, though, that to a surprising extent, across cultures, religions, and non-religious systems of thought, what is regarded as ethical behavior has far more in common than not in common. You don't need a religion to arrive at Kant's Categorical Imperative. Every religion seems to have its version of the Golden Rule.
Even today's Republicans have their own version: "He who has the gold, rules."
Good questions from the fundamentalists, too, at the Dawkins lecture, and I congratulate their teacher for bringing them to his lecture
Yes, defining what is ethical behavior can be tricky -- but I think we can agree that burning someone at the stake because they disagree is a no no --
I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, but sometimes I think that the hardline separatists need to loosen up a bit and not fight every little battle.
I just wish that the issue of religious faith could remain within one's own conscience, one's family, and one's own church (or synagogue, or temple, or mosque, or stupa), and not be pushed into the political arena.
I wish that in the political arena we could worry about doing what we can in this very real world to improve life before death, rather than be drawn into debating moral absolutes and eschatological issues.