I’m a big fan of real irony. Situations where the outcome is the opposite of that which is expected. That’s irony. The fact that Alanis Morisette’s “Isn’t it Ironic?” song actually contains no irony? That’s irony. You know what else is irony? This.
Dick Morris recently noted, regarding the four leading GOP presidential contenders in 2008 (John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani):
“And then there are the personal lives – the only one of these guys who hasn’t had multiple wives is the Mormon.”
Ironic. And kind of funny, too.
Funny
I’d heard that comment by Morris repeated somewhere, but had not put the pieces together on the wives…very ironic, indeed.
I don’t know how Newt Gingrich gets into that mix, though. He’s the most pure ‘conservative’ of that bunch (there’s been some news lately about how McCain, Rudy, etc., aren’t really conservatives anymore…) and while Newt can certainly talk his way out of a paper bag, he couldn’t raise money for a serious campaign if his life depended on it. (Must be my night for tired metaphors.)
Just this morning, Andrea Mitchell told Chris Matthews something interesting, in that the chatter is that Rudy’s next financial filings in a week or so will not be pretty, that while he is very popular, he’s not raising the money he needs to at this stage to compete. That’s a twist, I thought, considering how much street cred the guy has nationwide; of course, if he’s trying to raise money on the Right, he’ll always have problems considering how center-right his positions are on things like choice, guns, etc.
Matt, what’s the Utah buzz on Mitt? All I get here is how successful he was with the Olympics, meaning he must be able to make tough decisions on a grand scope.
TEC
Not a hot topic, but
The presidential race is rarely a hot topic in Utah. Mitt has overwhelming support here and in Nevada, and I’m positive that Utah will vote Republican in 2008.
Utah is a funny state, though. Corresponding with the abandonment of polygamy in 1914 (1890 according to official church history; 1914 marks the end of the purging of polygamists from within the highest ranks of the mainstream LDS church), Utah swung Republican. Republicans had been deeply committed to an anti-polygamy stance, resulting in extremely strong Democratic leanings within the state prior to widespread excommunication of polygamists from the church in the early twentieth century.
He did rescue the Olympics after a pretty major scandal, so that counts a lot for him, and he has a squeaky-clean record. In addition, he is surprisingly moderate on a lot of issues.
I doubt many here have thought much about the election yet, though. Most of the people I know, while they don’t just stamp “Republican” on the ticket vote and call it done, vote R for the presidential race due to these issues:
* Abortion. LDS voters — 75% of the state — tend to strongly be single-issue voters on this issue. If you have performed, encouraged, paid for, or arranged for an abortion, you are ineligible for all church leadership positions, full-time missions, and more. The LDS “Handbook of Instructions” has very strong language regarding this, which most members seem to interpret as a mandate to vote the party line based principally on this issue:
(Note: exceptions are made only for the life or health of the mother, an inviable fetus, rape, and incest.)
* Gay rights. LDS voters are split on this issue, but about 60% oppose gay rights, according to our recently-passed state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It’s a bit murky in this area.
Conversely, LDS members seem to be all over the map on other issues, and opposed to a lot of “faith-based initiative” stuff because, as a minority religion, they stand to lose a lot if a certain Christian sect gains too much secular power.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Not Wedge, But Right On Red
This past weekend I had the pleasure of talking at length with Ben about why I left the Republican party. The conversation was in our hotel room. We were shacking up together on a weekend golf trip and using the down time between rounds to talk politics. The only difference between college and last weekend was that, as expected with a decade’s passing of time, the TV screen was bigger. And we actually had to look up the number for Papa John’s. Otherwise, some things never change.
Except that I left the Republican party. I explained to Ben my reason for leaving the Republican party was because the GOP had chosen to rally voters by honing political focus on issues impacting a tiny percentage of people and their daily lives. As I’m quick to say, “What percentage of people in the U.S. go through an abortion? What percentage of the U.S. population is gay and wants to marry?” Meanwhile, the national debt is at $8.8T. A family of four has a share of the debt at over $100K. We’ve got an education system falling behind the rest of the world. But let’s focus on issues that mean far less by comparison. I called them silly. Ben called them ‘wedge issues.’
I understand why these are wedge issues. Republicans have turned these issues into pure voter demarcation, sprinkling the line of separation with religion dust. These are simple issues in which a position is absolute and debate doesn’t color in gray areas. This causes people to vote against their own best interest.
Because these issues are so loaded with emotional filling, I was trying to think about it in the form of explaining the current political mess to future generations. Because someday a young generation is going to ask about the gradual deterioration of the Republican party. And I realized the following: what the Republicans did is like getting people riled up to vote on legalizing Right On Red…
“Right now, in intersections across America, under street lights in your very neighborhood, you can’t make a Right On Red. You’re sitting in that car and not able to turn. Do you know why you can’t make a Right On Red? Do you? Because there’s a parade. A gay parade. A parade of gay people walking down that street. And they are all holding hands and walking to the abortion clinic. You can’t make that right on red because gay people are clogging up the street and walking to the abortion clinic. Next to Mexicans. Gay people and Mexicans. They are marching together. Some of the Mexicans are probably gay. We don’t have exact numbers but we’re pretty sure. And if you want to make a Right On Red, it’s time to vote Republican.”
Look where we are today.
Apathy
The obvious reason for and solution to this problem is for the masses to stop sitting on their buttocks during Election Day and going out to vote.
If only the fringe members of the Republican (and Democratic) party are going to vote en masse, can you blame the politicians to catering to them? Being a politician nowadays isn’t about serving the people, it’s about getting elected and staying elected. I believe the vast majority of people are down the middle moderate, but since they don’t vote, they don’t affect elections, and therefore politicians don’t give a hoot about them. All politicians care about is not causing the masses to rise up by doing or saying something stupid.
My $.02 Weed
Go Dems
That’s right Sammy, come over to the Dark Side. Those of us on the Left will treat you well, and then take 40% of your money when you die! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! (kidding)
Weed, I want to disagree with you. You’re right that the majority of moderate voters don’t vote, but if you look at the VOTING population, you see some interesting things. Polls from the last 10 years or so show that about 40% of voters are Democrats, 40% are Republicans, and 20% are “undecided” swing voters. (In more recent years, the numbers have narrowed to about 45/45/10.) So basically, 40-45% are going to vote for the Democrat no matter what, and 40-45% are going to vote for the Republican no matter what. So candidates spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to appeal to the people in the middle.
What Reagan discovered was that, in the early 80s, most of those swing voters were Middle-American religius people who didn’t have much of an opinion about economic issues, but sure as heck hated gay people and abortions. So that’s where they focused. And it worked until 2004. (Clinton was an aberration – he got by on sheer personality and the poor quality of his opponents.) But more recent polls have shown that the swing voter is changing. More and more are moving to the left on social issues (or at least libertarian – they may not like gays, but they don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t have equal rights) and to the right on economic issues (keep taxes down, etc.) Combine that with a hatred for Bush that has caused many Republicans to change sides, and we experience the great shift that happened in last year’s election.
So I think that the “wedge issues” will have less of an impact in the future. Although I guess we’ll see.
— Ben
Kinda narrow
I think your description of the situation is a little simplistic, but mostly true. I think the majority of democrats support gays and the majority of republican don’t, and the middle is moving towards support as well, because it’s a civil rights issue akin to race and suffrage.
However, I think a hot-button topic for elections in the future will be immigration. Dems seem to favor allowing illegal immigrants all kind of rights, but the GOP thinks we should ship them out. My personal opinion is that they don’t deserve rights, and while I don’t think they should be shipped out, they shouldn’t take jobs from willing Americans because they’ll work under the table.
The difference to me is that I believe you’re born gay, just like you’re born black. To punish someone for the way they’re born is wrong. However, illegal immigrants choose to cross the border and get jobs here. If they want that, make them citizens and have them pay taxes.
My $.02 Weed
Yes
I think you’re right about all of that, and yes, my description was purposely simplistic.
I’m stumped about illegal immigration, I really am. On one side, I agree that it’s a crime, and we shouldn’t be rewarding people for committing crime. On the other side, some of our own policies are to blame for poor conditions in Mexico (for instance, our farm subsidies have allowed American farmers to undercut farmers in Mexico and elsewhere), and our legal immigration system is overloaded and complicated. I can’t blame people for wanting a better life for their families and children, and I don’t feel right punishing children whose parents smuggled them across the border. But I also believe in rule of law. But, on a practical point, I don’t see how we can kick out 11 million people.
I’m stumped.
— Ben
Inalienable Rights
The Bill of Rights is a recognition of a few of the many inalienable rights of human beings. Not just Americans. We have watched our inalienable rights eroded as we’ve moved toward a more “civilized” society. I think some few of these are necessary for living in a largely-urban nation rather than the agrarian nation of our forefathers, but some are simply gratuitous and should be corrected, like restriction of protesters to “free speech zones” and elimination of the public marketplace with corporate-owned private malls.
Regardless, immigrants have rights; our job is to figure out how to effectively handle the influx of population while preventing catastrophic economic and social impact. Depriving them of their rights is not the solution.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Editorial Correction
Okay, let me revise:
They deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, they do not deserve to get any benefits which are taxpayer-provided unless they also pay taxes.
My solution is that I could not care less if they’re citizens, so make them citizens and allow them to fund the IRS like the rest of us.
How’s that?
My $.02 Weed
BOR Tangent
Completely off topic, but Matt I’m wondering if you could reply with which ‘few’ inalienable rights of human beings you think are in the Bill Of Rights. I would also like to know which ‘many’ inalienable rights you feel are the greater domain of rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. I’m curious, because I see the United Nations declaration as legal overkill and out of scope with what I would consider basic human rights.
Back to immigration…
The solution is already being implemented by the IRS. They are attacking businesses benefiting from the combination of cheap labor and avoidance of payroll tax and benefits. This in a broader sense provides a solution for the immigration issue. There’s nothing wrong with my fellow brothers and sisters of the human race living beside me (rather than beneath me) as long as they are paying their share of public utility in the form of tax. You don’t pay, you don’t stay.
Let’s make that…
Let’s make the inalienable rights of mankind its own topic. We can start with life, liberty, and property, and see what we get out of it 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
I Am Proof
By my previous post, I am proof this isn’t true. The more those politicians decided to cater to your middle 10% on aforementioned wedge issues, the more people like me crossed party lines.
Well…
You are, as always, unique.
— Ben
Flashback
I’ve had the opportunity to see the guy campaign. And yes, I voted for him then, too. Anyway, he literally demolished his competition in debates. There were some that included smaller-party candidates, which he handsomely won. The final debate was just with the Democratic contender, and the next day it was obvious who had just won the election. I can still remember him wrapping up and handing Shannon O’Brien (D) her ass. Even the news commentators were admitting it.
Hee
Funny. On a side note, for your reading pleasure, here are “Lines From Alanis Morissette’s ‘Ironic’, Modified to Actually Make Them Ironic.”
— Ben
That’s awesome!
That’s awesome. I particularly like this one:
—
Matthew P. Barnson