Leo BrownChristian Democrats
Mike Huckabee was not my candidate this year. He won’t be my candidate in the future. But his strong electoral performance on a shoestring made him one of the most intriguing candidates of 2008. In some ways he was sounding like a Republican populist, perhaps because he was running against Governor Romney, who clearly represented the business wing of the GOP. (Investment bankers are part of Governor Romney’s natural constituency.) Ron Paul was interesting, too, but that is another story. That has me thinking about what might happen to the Democratic Party if it was more conservative on some social issues but was populist domestically and anti-interventionist on foreign policy. James Dobson and George Lakoff may be happy with the current definition of the red-blue divide, but that is not the only way to define two political parties. The increasing number of people who don’t identify with either party suggests that a major adjustment by either the Republicans or Democrats might pay big electoral dividends.
In Europe one common party is the Christian Democrats. That name won’t play particularly well in this country. It seems to imply joining church and state. Moreover, Jewish voters have traditionally been an important part of the Democratic Party. “Judeo-Christian Democrats” gets at my idea, but it isn’t a very snappy name. Family Values Democrats might work, but “family values” has been badly overworked as a phrase (think Addams Family Values). Blue Collar Democrats is too narrow an electoral slice. Catholic Democrats (or Mormon Democrats) is both too narrow and too religious. It does, however, include pro-life voters the Democratic Party has driven away. Reagan Democrats won’t fly as a party name, but it does define an important demographic. Blue Dog Democrats perhaps fits what I am suggesting, though the current Blue Dogs seem to unite primarily around fiscal conservatism. Governor Brian Schweitzer has come to personify the resurgence of Western Democrats (independent and pro-gun, but also pro-education and pro-health care); however, you can’t run a national party on a regional name.
In any event, suppose all the social conservatives are happy in the Republican Party. I would argue that if the Republican Party goes down in a major electoral defeat on the economy this year, some social conservatives might well consider that putting all their eggs in one party’s basket might not have been such a good idea. Likewise, if the Democrats don’t win this year, when the economy is doing badly, they will have to ask themselves what they have to do on social issues to win at least 50% of the voters.
July 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Leo:
Interesting post, and one which confirms my long held conviction that God has no business being in politics, and so long as He is, the really stupid and susceptible among us will have their brains twisted to such extent they will vote against their own self interest every time; which, unfortunately, tends to favor keeping brain-dead republicans - George Bush being an apt example - in elected office.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Senator Obama seems to be getting at what I tried express when he said: “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square…. To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of our morality, much of which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
July 12th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
The dailectic at work, Albert on the one extreme, Leo on the other.
Hegel would be proud. Diametrically opposed groups that nullify one another and allow the elites to rule and fleece.
Some people are ranchers, the rest are cattle. Moooo!
July 13th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I admit that some religionists can be extreme, but I am surprised that anyone would consider Senator Obama’s statement that American views on morality are shaped by our Judeo-Christian heritage to be extreme. It seems to me Senator Obama is only stating the obvious. And the intent of my original post was that any political party that ignores this obvious truth does so at its peril.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Albert, you seem to assume that voting your own “self interest” is a short term gain.
For some, voting their “self interest” is a LONG term propostion.
For some, it’s voting their way into heaven.
For some, it’s the long term security of their family or nation.
For some, it’s long term economic security.
I’m reminded of a couple cities in California that had to beg the unions on bended knee to nullify certain contracts so the cities could escape bankruptcy.
Clearly, those who originally voted for those contracts were interested in themselves - but they didn’t look at the long term detrimental effects of paying cops and firemen more than $100K a year (with regular raises and bonuses)…they only looked at avoiding the imminent strike, or looking bad at the polls or angering their base (union members)…
And now the cities don’t have the money to pay for generous contracts, fat retirement plans, big bonuses…and all of those promises will swirl down the drain because some folks wanted to vote their “self interest”.