BreakPoint Blog
|
Portrait of an American voter Topics: Demographics, Ethics, Health & Science, Life Issues, Politics & Government, Religion & Society, Sexual Ethics, Trends, Worldview The election didn't go the way that many of us thought it would, last night. Which leads me to wonder, what exactly led to Barack Obama's second victory? What was the mentality of a typical Obama voter? Though no one can know for sure what's in someone else's mind or heart, we can at least look at some of the trends and ideas we saw during the campaign, and identify a few key factors. The politics of me. I saw a tweet last night (I forget who it was from -- it was a long night) saying that to many voters, the most important quality they saw in President Obama was that he seemed to care about people like them. Never, ever underestimate a person's ability to see in his idol just what he wants to see. But what precisely about Obama would lead people to think that he cared about them personally? This leads me to . . . The politics of greed. "Here, have some free stuff" seems to have been a dominant message this time around, and unfortunately, too many people went for it hook, line, and sinker. From birth control to Big Bird, we want what we want, and we want to pretend that no one -- certainly not posterity! -- will ever have to pay for it. After all, we're so important and special (see "The politics of me") that we should have whatever we want, right? "Ask not what your country can do for you" seems to have lived only as long as John F. Kennedy did. We've become a nation of "Ask your country to do everything for you." The politics of envy. I've been driven to the reluctant conclusion that we've become a nation where the media can simply point at someone and say, "Look, evil rich dude!" and whip up a mob, figuratively speaking, to take that person down. The Occupy movement and the prevailing meme about the "1%" that's soaked into our culture helped make sure of that. If "give me my free stuff" dominated the voter mindset, the idea that went with it seemed to be "Hey, he has more stuff than me! No fair!" The politics of nice. This might just be the most powerful factor of all. Because while people may have been influenced by the three factors I've named above, they certainly don't want to see themselves as selfish or greedy or envious. So modern liberalism throws a veil of niceness over it all: You want to give same-sex marriage to homosexuals, and free resources to illegal immigrants, and free health care to everyone? Why, what a nice person you must be! And this is the factor that draws in Christians most of all, I think. Ted Olsen at CT has a blog post showing that evangelical support for Obama was slightly up in key states like Ohio and Colorado, and from all I see in the evangelical world today -- anecdotal though my evidence may be -- I believe this "It's nice to give people things!" mentality is at the core of the trend. I'm not deliberately mocking these Christians: They recognize a problem like illegal immigration, they see the human face of it, and they genuinely care about the people involved (see this link from Sherrie Irvin for an example). But in too many cases, their approach is dangerously shallow and simplistic. (How ironic is it that many of the same Christians who will vote their conscience on immigration won't vote their conscience on abortion, because they believe the law has the capacity to deal with one but not the other?) Conservative Christians desperately need to find a way to grapple with this problem that involves mercy and justice in equal measure, and we need to do it before we're crowded out of the national discourse altogether. *** It's not a flattering picture I've painted of this typical American voter, and I can't help wishing I were wrong, but it's what I see. I'm just one person, though. I'd love to get your feedback and your critiques of this portrait, and your suggestions on what needs to change in our political and cultural landscape. |
PRINT
RSS
Comments:
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/the-tax-system-explained-in-beer/
is appropriate here... Hark? Do I hear the YOD?
But "The Tax System Explained in Beer" was a good explanation for me and interjects a bit of humor.
I've heard that Billy Graham reads through the Psalms and Proverbs every month by reading 5 Psalms and one chapter of Proverbs every day. Yesterday morning I began (again.... never seem ={ to stick with it) to do the same. I am finding great comfort in God's Word and promises.
Have you ever stopped and thought about how creepy this whole phenomenon is? The vast majority of us had never even heard of the guy before his speech at the 2004 convention. Incredibly, the next four-plus years saw him become a U.S. senator and then president. How on earth can something like that even happen?
How did he even get the 2008 nomination? He was an unaccomplished lightweight going up against vastly superior public servants like Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton. It's crazy.
This year, there's no way he should have been reelected. Yet, look at what happened.
It's bizarre, and it goes beyond just the help that the Republicans have given him.
Republicans didn't enjoy what Romney went through after the secretly recorded 47% comments went public, but how many of them remember Barack Obama going through a similar ordeal when his ridicule of guns and religion became public? That got a lot of play, but some folks conveniently forget that.
You mention Bill Clinton, a man I certainly have no time for. The media were all over the Lewinsky affair in every way possible. I was anti-Clinton, and even I got tired of how much fun the media were having with it.
Should Obama's comments have killed his support in middle America the same way Romney's comments hurt him? Most definitely. Should Clinton's scandal have left him a disgraced pariah? Certainly. The media can beat a story to death and still not always bring about results that satisfy us. In fact, one could argue that it isn't the media's job to produce results, and that they should just tell us what's happening and leave the rest to us.
The fact that Clinton and Obama have survived things that we wish had done them in isn't the fault of the media. That's on us.
Why do people seem to punish Republicans for their indiscretions and too often let Democrats off the hook? The theme I've heard from many people generally involves some form of the word "hypocrisy." They hear the GOP constantly claiming the moral and ethical high ground, and then see them act no better than anyone else. Folks don't hold the Democrats to the same standard because that party doesn't come across as "preachy" or "high and mighty," at least not in the same ways as the Republicans. Obviously, that feedback I get from people I know is anecdotal and not scientific, but it's a theme I've encountered too often to ignore.
The Republicans can't control what the media say or how the public reacts. What the party can do is address the things that ARE in its control. That lackluster field of presidential candidates; the tone of said candidates; the harsh attitudes on immigration; the projection of a lack of compassion toward the unfortunate; nominating terrible candidates such as Akin and Mourdock; these are things Republicans can and must deal with.
I understand your frustration, Gina. There are definitely some double standards at work. The Republicans have to do what we Christians also need to do: advocate for higher standards, then try to actually live up to them.
Todd Akin's political career is likely finished because of one dumb remark about rape; Ted Kennedy sexually assaulted a woman in front of witnesses, and he was re-elected multiple times and is remembered as a beloved icon. (To say nothing of the woman he killed.)
Herman Cain was knocked out of the primaries by rumors of extramarital affairs; Bill Clinton's affairs were confirmed, and he had a two-term presidency and today can still fill auditoriums with cheering crowds.
I could give you dozens more examples to show that Republicans are scrutinized to death and Democrats get to say and do whatever they want. Wherever it came from, how is the Republican party supposed to overcome a built-in disadvantage like that? I have no idea.
One change the GOP does need to make is to either devise or get on board with a reasonable immigration reform policy. Right now, the party is seen as stubbornly opposing anything other than rounding up the illegals and kicking them out. That image is costing the Republicans a lot of support from a key demographic that is not only growing but that should, in some ways, be a natural ally. For instance, many Latinos are serious about their Catholicism, including opposition to abortion. Many would like to vote GOP if they didn't see the party as the enemy. Simply changing that one dynamic would swing millions of votes.
The other thing I would suggest is to not be so ugly. The Republican debates last winter were terrible for the party's image. The audiences were heard booing a gay soldier and cheering at the mention of executions and uninsured people dying.
The candidates themselves were even worse. Anytime one of them showed a shred of decency, the others would tear him to pieces. Rick Perry spoke up for some compassion on immigration, and the others made him pay. Rick Santorum said that convicts who have done their time should be allowed to move on with their lives, including having their civil rights restored. Mitt Romney dishonestly claimed that Santorum wanted to give prisoners the right to vote.
That whole primary process seemed like a contest to see who could sound the most angry and bigoted. Don't think for a minute that people didn't notice. Whoever emerged from that mess was going to be hobbled by it and disadvantaged. How different it could have been if the party had remembered that Christians should try to act like Christians, and also remembered the old Reagan commandment against Republicans harshly attacking each other.
Again, none of the above requires abandoning fundamental party principles. It also doesn't call for changing what is beyond the party's control, i.e., the hard cores on the other side. What I'm talking about are ways to appeal to--or at least not turn off--the moderates and independents who decide close elections.
“Bible verse for the day, compliments of my friend Dr. Matthew Franck: 1 Samuel 8:18”:
“Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
Sobering words. The carotid of the body politic has been nicked.
Gina, it's not quite correct to say that the politics of greed preaches that no one will have to pay. It preaches that "they" will have to pay--somebody other than me, someone who can afford to pay when I need every dollar I get. And it's fair that they pay, because as the President said, they got what they got not because of their own hard work and intelligence, but because they were making use of the help of everyone else. (That's a totally honest restatement of his infamous "you didn't build that" speech--while those four words were, in context, discussing infrastructure, the full context was also a very explicit repudiation of the idea that those who are successful can claim credit for working hard and being smart.)
Though I think we also need to admit that Republicans often cater to greed as well. I don't think the answer to every problem is tax cuts. I have a relatively comfortable middle-class income, and my federal income tax last year was about 6% of income AFTER subtracting charitable contributions. My tax BRACKET is a lot higher, but child tax credits and the like knock a lot off. And frankly that's not a terribly huge amount; I actually pay more in school tax than in federal income tax (and since we plan to homeschool, I'm not going to get much direct benefit from the school tax).
The problem with tax policy is that we've accepted the notion that the people should be allowed to decide that someone else should pay more than they do, and perhaps even more dangerously, that some of that money should be redirected to those making the decisions (either directly or by voting for representatives). And then, of course, there is little to discourage the majority from demanding ever more from the minority.
Also, on the politics of nice, I think we need to recognize that one reason "nice" is alluring is that people have actually taken Christian teaching to heart, then reapplied it. Christianity teaches that how we respond to the poor and the stranger is a reflection of our love for God. Yet changing the transaction from direct care impelled by moral obligation to mandatory taxation has profound implications that our progressive friends tend to ignore. On the other hand, if we had more Andrew Carnegies ("He who dies rich dies disgraced") and fewer people saying "The one who dies with the most toys wins," there might be less clamor for forcible redistribution.
Mo, thanks for your comments. I am obviously too much in my cave as I did not know of the phenomenon of the Christians you and Gina have written about. I'd like some more information on it. Do you have some links you could share with me?
The last four years have been perfecting our union?
I promised my kids we would watch his acceptance speech - and Mitt Romney's gracious concession speech - after school, so I will watch it. Much as I wish it weren't so, I do agree with your assessment, Gina. We are living in The Age of Entitlement.
Through the Perspectives Course my husband and I have been taking at our church, http://www.perspectives.org, I'm gaining a better sense of God's purposes and regaining my desire to be on His team, rather than asking Him to fix my "problems". I have been fervently praying this morning for revival in God's American Church. That we would focus on Him, His Word, His purposes, regain the desire to be on His team, and cast away from ourselves all that is not of Him. I myself have much to purge out of my house and heart and also need to continue show up for His training each and every day.
What has horrified me the most is not only that Christians are thinking and behaving in exactly the same manner. It's not just that they are (mis)using the Bible to do so.
What's most horrifying is that now followers of Christ consider it a virtue to criticize those of us who say what you have said here, and who stand up for righteousness in any way.
So now we get flack not only from the world. We expect that. Now we are getting it from fellow Christians.
This is the part that caught me off-guard. And I honestly do not know what to do about it.
A large majority of apolitical Americans get their news and information from the increasingly corrupt mainstream media. They never listen to talk radio, watch Fox news or visit conservative websites or blogs. As we all know, this media is dominated by left-wing, progressive, liberals, all the very same thing! And we wonder why these people buy into Obama’s class warfare, or as Gina puts it greed, envy and nice. I don’t.
These same Americans are entertained and informed by industries (Hollywood, publishing, Madison Ave., etc.) that is as hostile as academia is to traditional American values. We are surprised these people give a failing president four more years? We shouldn’t be.
If we don’t fight for the culture within these professions in some way, politics alone will always come up against the secular welfare state worldview that underlies the cultural air we all breathe; and that eventually determines the direction and health of our society.