TNR :: Vote Righteously! (Brad Carson on why he lost to Dr. Evil Coburn)

[jefferson_dem]

I don't remember when I first realized that my campaign for United States Senate was in trouble. But one moment stands out. I was in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, home of the annual Grapes of Wrath Festival, in which locals celebrate John Steinbeck's fictional Joad family and their mythical journey from eastern Oklahoma to California. It was a Sunday morning, one week before the third anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and I had been invited by the pastor of a local Baptist church to discuss the topic: "How Would Jesus Vote?" Both my opponent in the Senate race, Tom Coburn, and I had been invited to what was more or less an interview before the pastor's congregation. I would go first, then Coburn would speak the following Sunday, and a right-wing talk-radio host--no friend of mine, to be sure--would conclude the three-week inquiry into how Jesus would want us to cast our ballots.

Now, I must confess: My own view is that Jesus would probably not vote at all, given the organized corruption that passes for modern American politics. But the idea that Christ Himself might sit out the 2004 election was apparently not under consideration, so I accepted the invitation--much to the pastor's avowed surprise. As an active Baptist who grew up in the Baptist church, I had no illusions that most of my co-religionists were ardent Democrats, but I rarely turned down any chance to make the case for my own candidacy and that of my fellow party members. After all, wasn't Daniel blessed for braving the lion's den?


As I arrived at the church, my wife and I were given the church bulletin, which outlined the weekly selection of hymns and Bible readings. On the back of the bulletin, atop the blank space reserved for copious note-taking during the sermon, was the heading: "wwjv? pro-life or pro-death?" (I favored the partial-birth abortion ban but opposed overturning Roe v. Wade.) In the sanctuary, a 20-by-20-foot depiction of a fetus looked down upon the assembled throng from a projection screen. Superimposed upon the unsettling image--which morphed to show the fetus in various stages of gestation--was fact after fact about abortions in America.


After the morning rituals, the pastor called me to the stage, and we engaged in a lengthy discussion about abortion, homosexuality, "liberal judges," and other controversial matters. After leaving the stage, I rejoined the congregation, and the pastor launched into an attack on the "pro-choice terrorists," who were, to his mind, far more dangerous than Al Qaeda. Yes, he acknowledged, thousands had died on September 11, but abortion was killing millions and millions. This was a holocaust, he continued, and we must all vote righteously. Vote righteously! In 13 months of campaigning across the vast state of Oklahoma, I must have seen or heard this phrase a thousand times, often on the marquees of churches, where, outside of election season, one finds only clever and uplifting biblical bromides. But it was not until that September Sunday in Sallisaw, one of the most Democratic towns in Oklahoma, that I first understood that the seemingly innocuous phrase "vote righteously" was the slogan not of a few politicized churches, but the cri de coeur of millions--millions who fervently believe that their most deeply held values are under assault and who further see this assault as at least tolerated by the Democratic Party, if not actually led by it.

<SNIP>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi%3D20041122%26s%3Ddiarist112204

[Guaranteed]

1. See, he might have been able to at least make these folks think

with the right pro-choice argument. The one based on civil liberties, which makes the issue of whether or not the fetus is a person irrelevant.

[damntexdem]

4. Whether or not the fetus is a person cannot be irrelevant.

If the fetus is a person, then the fetus should have civil rights akin to those of the born, though balanced by the rights of the mother. The big issue is the difference between a real human and a mass of tissues.

[Guaranteed]

9. Yes, it can. If the fetus is a full-blown person, the mother still

has the right to detach it from her body. Everyone has that right.

It's a civil liberties issue. No one can be forced to have a fetus, or another person, attached to their body. Ever.

[jefferson_dem]

16. dupe.

apologies.

[jefferson_dem]

17. The abortion issue is really one of control. Who should control women's

reproductive choices - the woman herself or the strong arm of the government? No state should be allowed to force a women to be pregnant and give birth to a child that she may not want. PERIOD!

[fujiyama]

14. You're assuming

that these people are thinking rationaly.

They're true believers. To them abortion is murder. If that is the case, then nothing justifies it. If you're going to make a civil liberties argument with these people, then to them you are saying that people have the right to commit murder.

The party should not give up its pro choice stance. Why? Because it's a matter of practicality. Unwanted pregnancies happen, and abortions will always take place, whether it is legal - or not. The question is, should it be safe and regulated, or in a back alley, through what amounts to a black market, by unscrupulous people that have no concern for the safety of the woman?

I would say our main focus should be about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place - and the religious right has been a failure on this front. After all, why do right wing religious zealouts oppose birth control and contraceptives? What about meaningful sex ed, not ineffective abstinence only programs?

We as a party must take the right HEAD ON on this issue. We're allowing them to frame the debate. For that, we must stop using terms like "Pro Life". They are anti choice or anti abortion. That's all. We must find a way to force the media to start labeling things accurately. After all, the right has been able to use words effectively - the estate tax is now the "death tax", tax cuts are "tax relief", then they go on about "the culture of life". What they are doing is making them virtuous and in effect, making the opposite - pro "death tax", against tax "relief", and in favor of what amounts to a culture of death.

This is vital. I think Carson has some good points in his article. The way I have begun to see the situation with many in relatively poorer states like Oklahoma, is that those that are voting for republicans are voting for their best interests. Many of these people know, from their own situation on the ground, that they won't get much back from a tax cut, that their own sons and daughters are dying in a war that now seems questionable. But to them, it's irrelevant, because they are voting their "values". These "values" of theirs are bigotry (mainly anti gay) and what is to them the killing of the unborn. Just like in the civil war, when many poorer non slave owners fought for the wealthy that did own them, these people to are fighting for a culture of bigotry.

Until the bigotry is defeated, we will not move forward in the south, the midwest, and much of the rest of the nation.

[Guaranteed]

18. That's basically what I'm saying we should do.

That's what the argument does. It bypasses the whole "it's murder" bullshit because it finally opens people's eyes to the fact that the woman is under no obligation to leave the fetus/child attached to her body. It renders it all moot.

[meow2u3]

22. Reframing time

We as a party must take the right HEAD ON on this issue. We're allowing them to frame the debate. For that, we must stop using terms like "Pro Life". They are anti choice or anti abortion. That's all.
I say let's change the definition of "pro-life" to mean all life--not just the unborn. Those who don't fit the broad definition of pro-life should not be allowed to claim it.

We must find a way to force the media to start labeling things accurately. After all, the right has been able to use words effectively - the estate tax is now the "death tax", tax cuts are "tax relief", then they go on about "the culture of life". What they are doing is making them virtuous and in effect, making the opposite - pro "death tax", against tax "relief", and in favor of what amounts to a culture of death.

I say let's call the estate tax the wealth tax; tax cuts "tax freeloading", and those who benefit from such tax cuts tax freeloaders.

[fishwax]

32. hear, hear!

wealth tax, tax freeloaders ... that's the type of thinking that has proven successful, but the other side is the only one getting those messages across.

[BlueCaliDem]

33. Anti-CHOICE, or Anti-FREEDOM is better than Anti-Abortion,

...because I still think, anti-abortionists are, in heart, still people who think everyone should have freedoms--especially they, themselves.
They still live under the ruse that America is a free country, and it should be used to define just exactly what they're against.

[ibegurpard]

2. So what's his solution?

Sorry, can't read it because it requires you to register, which I'm not going to do.
It sounds like he was pretty reasonable on the subject. What's his plan to be able to make his case to people like this without actually changing his ideals?

[JI7]

11. he doesn't really have one

he just described the situation and said how it's a problem for our party. and he said things like health care, minimum wage etc wont help either.

the only way i can see dealing with it so far is a complete change in our position on the issues to get their support.

[LiviaOlivia]

31. cont'd

Vote Righteously!
by Brad Carson
Post date: 11.12.04


<snip>

As a defeated Senate candidate in the most red of red states, many people have asked me for insights into the Democratic Party's failure to connect with culturally conservative voters. Much has already been written on this topic, and scholars will add more. But I do know this: The culture war is real, and it is a conflict not merely about some particular policy or legislative item, but about modernity itself. Banning gay marriage or abortion would not be sufficient to heal the cultural gulf that exists in this nation. The culture war is about matters more fundamental still: whether nationality is, in a globalized world, a random fact of no more significance than what hospital one was born in or whether it is the source of identity and even political legitimacy; whether one's self is a matter of choice or whether it is predetermined, before birth, by the cultural membership of one's family; whether an individual is just that--a free-floating atom--or whether the individual is part of a long chain that both predates and continues long after any particular person; whether concepts like honor and shame, which seem so quaint, are still relevant in a world that values only "tolerance." These are questions not for politicians but for philosophers, and, in the end, it is the failure of liberal philosophy that we saw on November 2.

For the vast majority of Oklahomans--and, I would suspect, voters in other red states--these transcendent cultural concerns are more important than universal health care or raising the minimum wage or preserving farm subsidies. Pace Thomas Frank, the voters aren't deluded or uneducated. They simply reject the notion that material concerns are more real than spiritual or cultural ones. The political left has always had a hard time understanding this, preferring to believe that the masses are enthralled by a "false consciousness" or Fox News or whatever today's excuse might be. But the truth is quite simple: Most voters in a state like Oklahoma--and I venture to say most other Southern and Midwestern states--reject the general direction of American culture and celebrate the political party that promises to reform or revise it.

That is what Antonin Scalia famously called the Kulturkampf. And there can be no doubt either that this is a fundamental dynamic in American politics or on which side of this conflict the electorate rests. Last Tuesday, I ran 7 percent ahead of John Kerry, and my opponent ran a full 13 percent behind President Bush. In most states, this would have been more than sufficient to ensure my victory. But not in Oklahoma. At least not last Tuesday. And, while the defeat was all my own, the failure was of the party to which I swear allegiance, which uncritically embraces a modernity that so many others reject.



Brad Carson represents Oklahoma's second congressional district.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041122&s=diarist112204

[damntexdem]

3. Where does the Bible talk about abortion?

What is the Biblical concept of when a person becomes a person?

Why do Baptists accept an interpretation that has been promulgated in recent centuries by the Catholic Church?

Since when is embracing reality to 'uncritically embrace a modernity that so many others reject'?

[ibegurpard]

5. Those kinds of arguments will fall flat with people like this.

You need to find ways of making it an issue of personal fairness.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

6. This Article Freaks Me Out

That's all I can say right now.

DTH

[rwork]

7. I saw a markee

at a Longtown Estates Baptist church in Oklahoma when Brad was running, that said, "Save America" Vote the bible.This is the ignorance we are dealing with.

[tandot]

8. Again, the State with one of the highest divorce rates is talking about

morality. Please, give me a break. Most of these people are pseudo-Christian hypocrites. It is alright to kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi babies and their families. I guess it is alright to kill them because they are "only" Muslims not white "Christians"

Jesus message was about love, forgiveness, and compassion...what those conceited pseudo-Christians are preaching is hate, intolerance, and mercilessness.

[okieinpain]

10. this is why we need dean in the leadership. the old guard is going

to try and compete with these people. we need to go completely around them and get the folks who are not voting.

[fishwax]

24. I agree

as another okie (and also in pain), it makes no sense to me to build any kind of overriding national strategy based on what will play in Oklahoma. Because nothing will play in Oklahoma. Not without a sea change in the values of this state.

[IronLionZion]

12. How are Republicans PRO-LIFE?

To this date no one has convinced me that they are...especially Bush!

Pro-death? maybe, pro-corporation? definitely! pro-poverty? probably but pro-life? NOPE!

[fujiyama]

15. The term pro life

is one created by the right to give the appearence of goodness.

It's like "death tax", tax "relief", and "culture of life".

If they are pro life, we automatically are "pro death".

[ComerPerro]

13. This church should be taken down. No more tax-exempt

They are officially a political organization. They don't believe in God or Jesus. They believe in Bush.

[msongs]

19. its the American Taliban...same kinda crowd that voted for hitler when

the German christians participated willingly in the third reich so they could get rid of those pesky jews.

Msongs
Riverside CA

[PATRICK]

20. He was a great debater

And the other guy a wretched hack. Our guys come all prepared with the great speeches, the right heart and commitment, the ability to lead and legislate-

but not run for office and adapt to the political scene. Not the "issue" scene, the POLITICAL scene. What he saw was not an issue but a tactic. No speech or idea is going to overcome a knife in your back or a senseless mob. I hope it occurred to him that though many might credit his guts, this was clearly an ambush situation which was so bad he need not even have attended?

Hey Jesus gave some great confrontational and deep speeches to hostile crowds and got nearly stoned for it. Never let let your enemy dictate the rules of engagement unless you intend him to do so for your own purposes.

Long, I mean long, talks with the ministers and maybe some sidelong looks at their bank accounts, might be better than hopeless oratory before frenzied staged audiences. We have a lot of people who can come and speak and take stands. Running for office means dealing with the strategies and seeing the problem BEFORE you get deep-sixed.

From the sounds of it, even these enthusiastic evangelicals seem to have gone far enough to begin alienating large chunks of their congregations. Someone should bring in real competition. This is a brutalized Christianity, frothing in easy hysteria over murder and sex. It should die out or down on its own if you can keep the pols outside.

[ellie]

21. What happens to these

people when abortion is made illegal? Do they fade into the woodwork, satisfied that they have done good works for the Lord? Or will they move on to something else?

[fishwax]

23. Why look to Oklahoma for the primary lessons from this election

I live in Oklahoma, so it's not a matter of bashing Oklahoma. But Carson seems to be saying the party should run even farther right then he did. That would be hard to do.

Another quote from the article:
"in the end, it is the failure of liberal philosophy that we saw on November 2."

I don't see any support for that at all. Because voters in Oklahoma reject modernity, we should too?

Sure the culture wars are real. Sure there are people who think spiritual issues are more important than "bread and butter" issues. Sure we should find a way to appeal to those people. But we don't have to sacrifice our core values to do so. There are plenty of issues (particularly matters of social welfare) that can easily be reframed to have a spiritual dimension, for those that need it.

[ShaneGR]

25. And so many on this board bashed Carson....

Because they simply don't understand middle america and expect every single Democrat to act like they live in some sort of liberal utopia.

[JI7]

27. i remember

and there was one person who went after him regularly because he wasn't liberal enough.

but Carson wasn't a sell out or a wimp or anything like that. he was a democrat who understood how things were in his state. and he was trying to win under the circumstances. i thought he would win and i wished he would have. but reading this does help understand why the results turned out as they did.

[fishwax]

28. as someone who doesn't live in a liberal utopia

But rather in Oklahoma, where Carson made every attempt to appeal to conservative Christian voters (highlighting his positions against abortion, immigration, gay marriage) and still topped out at 11% of the white evangelical protestant vote.

I thought Carson had a good chance in this race, I really did, but in the last two weeks of his campaign he seemed to run out of money and was outspent by about a factor of ten. Still, I can't help but think if he'd spent a little less time on the w.e.p. and a little more time on the other 71 percent of the electorate, he might have fared a little better.

[fishwax]

26. If 100 people were in that church, 90 would vote * regardless

of what Carson did, and the rest were probably predisposed to bush but perhaps willing to give Carson a listen. But he ran the bulk of his campaign trying to convince thosee remaining and unlikely 10, at the expense of people who might have voted for him if they'd bothered appealing at all to him. God forbid the national dems should follow his lead. It would be a recipe for disaster.

I realize this thread is about more than Carson's campaign, but if he's trying to present it as a microcosm of what dems should do nationwide, it bears further review. In that election, a 3rd party candidate who believed the government stole her dog and implanted a microchip in her brain received 6% of the vote. That's pretty high, considering she never ran any ads in the most expensive campaign in state history.

The truth is, white conservative protestants made up only 29% of the voters (and the same percentage said moral values were their main concern). And, surprise! they voted overwhelmingly for Coburn. This despite Carson making every attempt to appeal to them and distance himself from "liberals." Still, Carson got only 11% of that demographic.

In other words, about 3% of voters were white evangelical protestants who voted for Carson. After making every attempt to appeal to them. Why bother?

[ThorsHammer]

29. Is there a compromise solution on abortion?

Personally, I am against it barring extenuating circumstances (rape, incest, mother's health), but also acknowledge the realities (look at the baseball bat thread for an example) and don't want people to be forced to go to back alleys or whatever the term is. Ideally we (as a society) would be able to cut down on the number of abortions through education, resources for the mother, adoption, etc. I don't see anything wrong with supporting abstinence, but would also like to see some realistic sex education too: something along the lines of "Abstinence is the only foolproof method, but IF you have sex then use protection." Insisting solely on abstinence and refusing to teach common sense sex education is foolish on the GOP side.

[fishwax]

30. Abortions decreased under Bill Clinton

He always advocated the stance that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. That was a winning argument in the 90s, and could be again today. For those conservatives (or moderates) who actually oppose abortion and see it as the taking of a life, they should look to reduce abortions, and there are much more effective ways to reduce abortion than through legislation (education, empowering women, improving economic conditions, etc.).

Some of the people attending fundamentalist churches and opposing abortion can be convinced that it would be better to make abortion rare than to make it illegal. On the other hand, there are people who "oppose abortion" who don't so much care about reducing abortions as they do about controlling women's bodies. They may never admit that's the real issue, but they will always support criminalization of abortion, even at the expense of reducing abortion. Democrats have to separate the wheat from the chaffe.

[ThorsHammer]

34. I agree with you

I'd much rather cut down on abortion through education, helping women out (education, jobs, etc), adoption and so on. I do see it as the taking of a life, but would be willing to make reasonable exceptions for things like rape, incest, mother's life in danger, etc. I would like to see it very rare, which is where I'm still bothered by the sheer number we have in this country. I don't think it would be a big issue at all if it were done only in the circumstances mentioned above, but there are likely many more for other reasons. I'd much rather see these kids go to an adoptive home, as there are many people out there who can't have kids of their own but who would gladly adopt.

[Blue_Tires]

35. it's hard to have much hope after reading that