Parties and Coalitions

Two recent articles on parties and their attempts to cut into the coalition supporting the other party. Both involve religious affiliation, Jewish supporters of the Democrats and Evangelical supporters of the Repoublicans.

From Monday's Washington Post:

Post-9/11 Drive by Republicans To Attract Jewish Voters Stalls

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 6, 2006; A05

Nearly five years ago, immediately after the Sept.11, 2001, attacks, Republican strategists identified what they hoped would be a powerful new engine of support. "September 12 Republicans" were Jewish Democrats and independents who would switch their allegiance because of their concern over national security and their appreciation of President Bush's stalwart support of Israel.

It is such people that Vice President Cheney will be courting tomorrow, when he speaks to the closing plenary session of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference. But the much-trumpeted effort by the Bush White House to make deep inroads on the Democrats' historic claims on Jewish voters -- and, even more important politically, the campaign contributions of Jewish donors -- has not materialized in any convincing fashion, according to poll data, fundraisers and campaign finance reports.

In 2004, Bush improved his 2000 performance among Jewish voters, jumping from 19 percent to 25 percent, according to exit polls. But this gain was disappointing to many Bush supporters -- and was substantially below the 35 percent level Republican presidential candidates averaged through the five elections of the 1970s and 1980s.

And from the self-styled "good government" magazine the Washington Monthly, story on how "moral values" transcends abortion and sex, and includes the care of God's Creation -- e.g., concern with global climate change:

The article entitled When Would Jesus Bolt
begins with the discussion of Randy Brinson, and evangelical who has registered and mobilized many religiously committed voters, working for a bill to study the bible in the Alabama legislature, working with Democrats:

when Brinson and the other supporters—including several Pentecostal ministers, some Methodists, and a member of the state board of education—entered the state house chamber to make their case, they faced off against representatives from the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women of America, and the Eagle Forum. These denizens of the Christian Right denounced the effort, calling it “extreme” and “frivolous” and charging that it would encourage that most dangerous of activities, “critical thinking.” The real stakes of the fight, though, were made clear by Republican Rep. Scott Beason when he took his turn at the lectern. “This is more than about God,” he reminded his colleagues. “This is about politics.”

Actually, it's about both—a fight over which party gets to claim the religious mantle. Nationally, and in states like Alabama, the GOP cannot afford to allow Democrats a victory on anything that might be perceived as benefiting people of faith. Republican political dominance depends on being able to manipulate religious supporters with fear, painting the Democratic Party as hostile to religion and in the thrall of secular humanists. That image would take quite a blow if the party of Nancy Pelosi was responsible for bringing back Bible classes—even constitutional ones—to public schools.

The article includes another dimension of the moral values associated with evangelicals:

While Brinson has been working with Democrats in Alabama on the Bible literacy bill, other evangelicals are having their own road to Damascus moments. One of them is Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), and a frequent subject of profiles on “kinder, gentler” evangelicals in outlets like Newsweek and USA Today. Cizik has spent years trying to get evangelicals invested in what he calls “creation care,” the idea that God gave them responsibility for tending to the earth. His hope has been that a Republican administration would be more likely to pay attention to lobbying from its own base on issues like carbon dioxide emissions than from liberal environmentalists.