Category: Anger in Politics

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – January 17, 2016

Another jam-packed news week: David Bowie stepped through the door, the Dow fell through the floor, the SOTU had the lowest ratings ever, the Republicans debated, and you didn’t win Powerball.

So, something to cheer you up at the start your week:

COW Foxes

Gonna miss ol’ Ziggy:

COW Bowie2

Wall Street longs for yesterday:

COW Lost Pet

The GOP debate followed the usual script:

COW Big Tent

Republicans are beginning to rationalize about the probable primary winner:

COW Satan for Prez

In this primary season it has become clear that facts don’t matter. How you feel matters. Other people don’t matter. How you relate to your tribe matters. Irresponsible tax policies, silly monetary policies (gold!), destructive foreign policy, no climate policy, no healthcare policy, no infrastructure policy, charter schools as an education policy, these all matter. Except for militarism, do they have any public policy positions?

The Clintons begin to understand the threat:

COW First Word

Facebooklinkedinrss

Evangelical Voters Have Big Influence on Primaries

As we continue our deep dive into American demographics and its impact on politics, today, let’s consider the role of evangelical Christians in our primaries. In Iowa, evangelical and born-again Christians account for 60% of those who attend Republican caucuses. Last fall, The Economist published a chart showing the percentage of evangelicals by state, and each state’s power at the Republican Party convention:

Evangical Voters

The Republican candidates are trying hard to court evangelicals. Nationally, Ted Cruz has a 64% favorable rating among evangelicals, according to Public Policy Polling (PPP), behind Ben Carson, who has a 69% rating. Marco Rubio and The Donald are at 54%.

Blog readers may remember our review of “One Nation Under God” by Kevin Kruse. In that book, Kruse shows how Rev. Billy Graham influenced our politics for 50 years. He believed that our way of life and our economic system were ordained not just by God, but by the Christian God.

Billy Graham said during the 1952 presidential campaign:

The Christian people of America will not sit idly by…They are going to vote as a bloc for the man with the strongest moral and spiritual platform, regardless of his views on other matters.

Well, Billy’s son, Franklin Graham, has a group called Decision America that is conducting a 50-state tour to energize Christians to vote. From his website:

I’m going to every state in our country to challenge Christians to live out their faith at home, in public and at the ballot box…

Franklin Graham has been involved in politics before. He supported Romney. He has backed ballot initiatives opposing gay marriage; he led prayers at the first inauguration of President George W. Bush.

Like many evangelicals, he sees a pattern of bullying by secular forces and their allies in government. He worries about Christian employers having to fund health insurance that covers birth-control, and wonders if religious colleges will one day have to admit gay students (like they don’t already!).

As Kevin Kruse shows, the history of American Christianity is full of prayer meetings in which the faithful bewail a nation adrift, and vow—like the tribes of Israel before them—to stand fast in the face of tyrannical rulers. At his kick-off meeting in Des Moines, IA, Franklin noted that:

…an estimated 20 to 30 million Christians stayed home in the 2012 election.

He wondered what our country would look like if city councils, school boards and mayor seats were filled by believers in the next two or three elections. And he urged Christians to not only vote in next year’s elections but to run for office at every level of public office. Franklin Graham will not be supporting any specific candidates or parties. He says that he left the Republican Party in late 2015 in favor of an independent status.

Gee, political enlightenment came just a few months ago.

But today, most American politicians are already believers. HuffPo says that 92% of 114th Congress are Christian. Compare that to the 73% of American adults who are Christian, according to Pew Forum. A full 99% of Republicans in Congress are Christian, compared to (only) 81% of the Democrats.

And Graham’s not being a member of a political party is a fiction. His agenda is supported by just one party, the one that his 97 year-old father affiliated with back in 1952. The party that already has 99% of its Congress people affiliated with the Christian religions. And it takes a fair amount of cognitive dissonance for a religious group that already has a supermajority of Congress and takes an absolutely important part in our politics to claim persecution at the hands of the government.

Franklin Graham may be a bit more subtle in 2016 than he was in 2012, but you have to wonder if his ultimate goal is to impose his own version of Christianity on the entire nation.

The Old Time Religion of both Billy and Franklin Graham has a deep, visceral attachment to the Republican Party from the marriage of capitalism to Christianity in the 1930’s that promoted religious hostility to the New Deal, to convincing Eisenhower to add “In God We Trust” to our currency, and “Under God” to our pledge of allegiance.

That Old Time Religion is still at work for the GOP, even if Franklin Graham says he is non-partisan.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Angry Men Now a Political Force

The spin after the SOTU was about how angry voters are, and the political opening that creates, despite the genuine good news on the economy. Here is Mr. Obama from the SOTU:

Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.

We can’t change the fact that some people are angry, but this article from the Washington Monthly by Andrew Yarrow points to some stunning facts about how men in particular have been left by the wayside of American life:

At least 20% of the nation’s 90 million white men have been pushed to the sidelines, either retreating or storming out of the mainstream of American life. They are not the men you see at work, who play with their children, go out with their wives or partners, are involved in their communities, and earn a living to save for their children’s education and their own retirement. What they do doesn’t register in…the gross domestic product…

Yarrow continues:

We know that they are out there. But they don’t fit old stereotypes of failure, so we’ve had trouble coming to grips with who they are or naming the problem. Parts of their stories have garnered significant attention, but we don’t see that what have been treated as separate problems are closely related.

Here are a few statistics from the article that merit your attention:

• Today, fewer than seven out of ten American men work; in the 1950s, nine out of ten worked.
• Since the 1970s, inflation-adjusted incomes for the bottom 80% of men have fallen, with the most dramatic declines occurring among the bottom 40%, most of whom do not have a college education.
• Today, just half of men are husbands; in 1960, three-fourths of men were married.
• As Barack Obama leaves office, only two out of three children live with their fathers; when John Kennedy was elected President, nine out of ten children lived with their fathers.
• Today, 43% of 18-to-34-year-old American men live with their parents (compared to 36% of millennial women); in 1960, about 28% lived at home.
• There are 36% more women in college than men, whereas in 1970, there were about 35% more men than women in college.
• Men are 50% less likely to trust government than women.
• In recent years, there has been a roughly 20-point gender voting gap, with white men being much more likely not only to vote for Republicans but to express disillusionment and anger toward government; until about 1980, men and women voted roughly evenly for Democrats and Republicans.

The point is that a lot has gone wrong for many white men, a demographic that once was the epitome of privilege and high expectations. And while politicians discuss stagnant wages, broken families and inequality, few notice, much less talk about the probable linkages between these issues and the impact of angry males on our politics.

Some may be thinking that this is a manufactured issue. After all, men still out-earn women, and they still hold most of the CEO and board–level jobs. And none of this white male angst should obscure the continuing struggles of women and people of color, including men of color. African-American and Latino men have had it worse than white men for a very long time.

But we ignore any group’s anger at our peril. The Bundy Brigade’s antics in Utah and Oregon is just one recent example. Many men are mad as hell, and their anger is often turned on scapegoats: Government in the case of the Bundys; Muslims, immigrants, African Americans, and Latinos in the case of others.

In 2016 we are seeing several presidential candidates feeding from the trough of this anger. Playing to the inchoate anger of a sizable minority of white men who have been benched economically, or who simply left the field, is a dangerous demagoguery, one that only benefits the demagogues.

Facebooklinkedinrss