Political Irony

An interesting article in The Daily Beast points out what should be obvious to everyone by now — the GOP may pay lip service to social conservatives, but they haven’t actually done much of anything for them. The interesting part is why — you can’t solve a cultural problem with a political solution. Or stated another way, you can’t legislate morality.

Prohibition demonstrated that a long time ago, but somehow that didn’t stop us from trying a “war on drugs”. So what made anyone think that making homosexuality a crime would eliminate it? Or think that making abortion illegal would do anything other than cause the deaths of desperate women.

In large part the GOP gained power in the last 40 years because they expanded their base beyond the rich, moneyed elites who have always controlled the party by adding (mainly religious) social conservatives. For the rich, this was a marriage of convenience, and for them it was very convenient. As the article puts it:

Now, let’s see who has won, and who has lost, in the ensuing 34 years.

It’s clear that the rich—call them the 1 percent if you like, but I prefer to think of them as the moneylenders whom Jesus threw out of the Temple—have prospered enormously. In 1983, the wealthiest 1 percent were 131 times richer than the average American. In 2009, they were 225 times richer. In 2012, the top 20 percent made $13.5 trillion in income; the entire bottom 80% made $1 trillion.

These are disparities not seen since before the Great Depression. Whether for better or for worse, the ultra-rich have done extremely well in the 30 years you’ve allied with them.

How have you done, in the same period? Not well at all. Not only is gay marriage now the law for over two-thirds of Americans while the value of marriage in general has been declining for decades; not only are television, film, music, and video games more vulgar than we could have imagined in 1980; but more Americans are declaring themselves “Nones,” that is, people of no religious affiliation, than ever before in our history. Sure, some churches are expanding, but overall, your way of life is in steep decline. In short, you are losing horribly.

Ironically, social conservatives should learn from the gay movement, which initially tried a political solution (laws and lawsuits), but saw that the more they tried to force their beliefs on others, the stronger the backlash. They realized that to solve a cultural problem (discrimination against gays) they had to use a cultural solution.

And gays did, with TV shows like Ellen and “Will & Grace” and by breaking down cultural stereotypes in hundreds of other ways. They showed that gays are people with the same hopes and aspirations as everyone else. And it worked. Even gay friends of mine were surprised by how quickly they won the right to marry. And with little or no backlash.

In trying for a political solution, social conservatives have created such a backlash. The face of social conservatism has become shrill politicians and wingnuts like Michele Bachmann and Fred Phelps. No wonder young people are running away from religion. But most Christians are not bigots or homophobes.

Social conservatives are in an abusive relationship with the Republican party. Maybe it is time to break up.

There is a good reason why our founding fathers insisted on a wall of separation between church and state. It was meant to protect religion as much as to protect the state.

After Obama announced his executive action to clean up some of our immigration mess, Republicans screamed bloody murder. As reported here over a week ago:

Rep Steve King said that Obama was “throwing this nation into a crisis”. And Senator Tom Coburn warned of “violent reactions” from people who disagree with Obama, saying “the country’s going to go nuts” and we could see “instances of anarchy [and] violence”.

It should be no surprise to anyone that the reality is quite different. Gallup just released poll results that show that 50% of Americans say that Obama’s action is “about right”, with 22% saying “not far enough”. Only 26% say it went “too far”. In other words, 72% of Americans are fine with what Obama did.

Obama’s approval rating even improved to 44%. To put that in perspective, that’s close to Reagan’s rating of 47% at the same point in his presidency.

A new study from Duke University in North Carolina gives strong statistical proof that the practice of Gerrymandering is perverting our democracy.

North Carolina has 13 congressional districts. In the study, they drew a series of 100 congressional district maps randomly. They took the actual vote results from the 2012 election and totaled them for each randomly drawn map. They found that with exactly the same votes, on average 7.6 Democratic representatives would win the election.

This contrasts sharply with the 4 Democrats elected in the real election. In their conclusion, the authors state bluntly that allowing Gerrymandering subverts the “will of the people“.

It is easy to get rid of Gerrymandering. In fact, the US is the only major country that allows self-interested politicians to control the redistricting process. Three states (Washington, California, and Arizona) have laws that require redistricting to be done in a non-partisan manner. And there are other alternatives, such as avoiding congressional districts entirely and elect representatives for a state “at large”.

Gerrymandering violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, and furthermore violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We should get rid of this dinosaur.

Wait a minute, didn’t the Republicans just sweep the midterm elections in their largest wave in modern history? Didn’t they increase their majority in the House and take over the Senate? Isn’t the GOP now boasting that the American people repudiated the entire Democratic agenda? Isn’t Obama so unpopular that even Democratic candidates were distancing themselves from him and his achievements?

Maybe so, but none of that matters. In reality, the midterm elections were very bad news for the GOP. Let’s look at the facts, starting with why this election doesn’t really matter:

• This was a midterm election, when voter turnout is traditionally low. And in fact, this election had the lowest turnout of any election cycle since World War II. That favors the Republicans, just like it did the last time we had a midterm election.
• The Republicans successfully used voter suppression tactics to keep Democrats away from the polls, but that won’t last. The Republicans might have gained an advantage for a couple of elections, but they have also permanently angered minority voters (our fastest growing demographic). The Democratic party will improve their formidable get-out-the-vote machine and help voters with the documentation they need to meet the ridiculous and confusing new voting requirements.
• In this midterm the Democrats were defending 13 Senate seats in states that are red or purple. Republicans only had to win six (less than half) of them to take over the Senate.
• The Republicans themselves have changed the Senate so that it takes a filibuster-proof 60 votes to get much of anything through it. They may have a majority now, but by their own hand a majority doesn’t mean so much anymore.
• Besides, what has a majority in both houses of Congress given the GOP? Open warfare inside their own party about what to do about immigration reform.
• What are we seeing from our new Republican legislative leaders? Lawsuits, calls for impeachment and government shutdowns, climate denial, theocracy, thinly veiled racism, paranoia, and even more Benghazi hearings.

But wait, there is even worse news for Republicans from the midterm elections:

• Republican candidates might have won, but Republican issues lost. Big time. Every major Democratic ballot initiative was successful. And remember this was in an election largely attended by Republicans. Who would have believed that solidly Red states would raise the minimum wage? But they did. And legalizing marijuana did well too.
• Republican initiatives lost. Every last “personhood” amendment failed. Remember when Republicans were the party promising to preserve the sanctity of heterosexual marriage? They failed at that too. Gay marriage is now legal in 35 states + DC and 9 more are in the process of legalizing it.
• Democrats won the Senate race in Virginia, which was supposed to be a Red state in an election that strongly favored Republicans, and without even doing much campaigning. Virginia has crossed the tipping point in its move to the left. The Republicans also lost Georgia as a solidly Red state in this election. Those are two southern states (albeit increasingly urban ones) – the heart of the GOP.
• Republicans failed to pick up any Senate seats in blue states. So while two red states went blue in this election, no blue states went red. The only GOP Senator from a Blue state after this election is Susan Collins of Maine, who is the party’s last moderate (a dying breed).
• There are some new Republican governors, but none of them ran on social issues, Obama, or opposition to the ACA. Their main advantage came from Citizens United opening up the floodgates of soft money. This was the most expensive election in history (even more expensive than the 2012 election, which included a presidential election). But the money situation might be changing.
• Democrats have consolidated their power in states that generate almost all of America’s wealth – with the exception of the energy industry, which is controlled by Texas. Texas alone accounts for 10% of the GOP majority in the House. Ironically, Texas has had the lowest voter turnout in the country for decades.
• In addition, the Texas economy is based almost entirely on oil. Texas weathered the economic collapse because it is largely disconnected from the US economy. But with oil prices falling and non-fossil-fuel energy surging, look for their economy to wane (the same way it has in every economy limited to a single resource). As happened in the rust belt, their population will decline except for minorities, and then Texas too will become a Blue state (like Virginia and Georgia).

Finally let’s look at the 2016 election:

• It is a presidential election so turnout will be much higher, which favors the Democrats.
• The Democrats firmly control 257 electoral votes. The Republicans firmly control 149 electoral votes. It only takes 270 votes to win the presidential election. You do the math.
• And that’s not even counting Virginia, which is considered a blue state now. If the Dems take only Virginia, they win 270 electoral votes and win the presidential election.
• In order for Republicans to win the presidential election, they will have to win every single state that is considered competitive, and they will also have to flip one firmly Democratic state. And, of course, they will have to find a candidate who can make it through the Republican primary and then appeal to mainstream voters. Good luck with that.
• Things are just as bad in the Congressional elections, where Republicans will be defending 24 senate seats (almost a quarter of the Senate) and 18 of them look to be competitive. The chance of the GOP holding on to the Senate is precisely zero.

The bottom line is that because they (think they) won the 2014 election, there is no reason for the right wing-nuts to change, and there is no reason for the Republican party to change. The 2014 election was a perfect storm, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. By every measure, the Republican party is still going down, and they are gaining speed.

After all, a freak snowstorm doesn’t mean that long-term climate change isn’t happening. And the GOP doesn’t seem to understand that either.

The GOP-led investigation by the House Intelligence Committee took two years to study the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. It was not the first Congressional investigation to look into it (in fact, it was the seventh), but Republicans promised that it would be the authoritative one. Well, like all the investigations before it, this one found no wrongdoing and no cover-up. In other words, there is no there there.

But of course, that will not stop the investigations. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham has already condemned the report from his own political party, calling it “full of crap“. Graham says there will be another investigation (this is the eighth one) and the new one will be carried out by a House Select Committee.

Graham promises that the new investigation will be “more successful”. Which I guess means that it will find someone, anyone, to blame. Graham says “I’m not going to stop until someone is held accountable for allowing it to be a death trap, somebody be fired for not coming to the aid of these people for nine-and-a-half-hours.”

After that, can we have an investigation into Graham for wasting our time and money?