November 19, 2004
The New Fundamentalists

P. Scott Cummins is one of the cooler folks I've met through blogging. He holds a law degree and is a recovering corporate worker bee. Scott lives in the Seattle neighborhood of Magnolia, and takes care of his two daughters while his lovely wife Kathleen does the power suit thing (actually she's way more stylish than that). He also does scads of community and school volunteer work, and has been very involved in a charity efforts in Uganda. This moderate Republican happens to be very plugged-in, and as a long-time local boy has an elephant's memory, you might say, of Seattle's political culture. Which he sees as relevant to the national political landscape right now.

I'll let Scott explain. He has some piquant perspectives to share about what "reaching out" means to Democrats, now that they're asking Republicans to get nicey-nicey after Bush's victory, plus GOP gains in Congress and The Senate.

Cummins advises that , "....In response, Republicans need to assess....with what manner of “reach out” do Democrats operate in areas where they have taken over," such as Seattle.

Then he digs in:

Consider the Seattle political landscape of today. A Republican working in Seattle city government begs a reporter not to “out” him for fear of workplace retaliation. City advisory boards, commissions and volunteer councils are cleansed of Republican involvement by Democratic operatives who, by turn, control nominations, define selection criteria, and vet candidates. City Department Managers meanwhile provide similar access to public employee union bosses. All to ensure the iron-fisted grip of Democrats – concerned by their mere 85% standing among the electorate!

All in all, Democrats need to face up to the unique forms of fundamentalism which mark their brand of politics. As a Republican who is pro-choice, pro-environment, support gay partnership and against the death penalty – my place in the party has never been questioned – nor has my strong advocacy of those positions. Instead, Republican Party leaders have had to reconsider their own perspectives as President Bush has repeatedly enunciated that he would not oppose state-based legislated domestic partnerships for gay couples. This is hardly the fundamentalist theocracy that the Michael Moore-inspired Democrats are screaming about. On the other hand, try holding pro-life and Evangelical Christian viewpoints – and then seek any position of leadership in the Democratic Party. Which party has the more broad, inclusive and “big tent’ perspective now?

Seattle’s “company town” experience under Democratic rule provides the Republicans with all they need to know about how their opponents would operate nationwide if they could. Democrats in Seattle have a thirty year record of paltry outreach aimed at healing between the parties. When given the chance, they enforce a juggernaut and consolidate upon every perquisite. It is in keeping with their worldview - and as it is now clear – a politically fundamentalist worldview. Without understanding that, and without changing that, Democrats show every inclination of becoming a political party in permanent decline.

Pink: the new black.

Squid: the new Viagra.

Democrats: the new fundamentalists?

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 19, 2004 01:14 PM | Email This
Comments
1. The Seattle City Council is upset when they don't manage an unanimous vote. That pretty much illustrates the entire issue.

Posted by: Al on November 19, 2004 02:06 PM
2. Since you sort of bring it up, I've been think about the GOP and the urban voter, and how the GOP may need to give some time an effort to analyzing the urban voter and make some inroads into the last refuge of the social democrats.

Obviously, voters who think high taxes, all-powerful bureaucratic micro-management of daily life, and obeisiance to political correctness are a lost cause, but surely there must be some urban voters who could be persuaded to come into the light.

Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on November 19, 2004 03:29 PM
3. With respect to the claim that Dems have a "fundamentalist" worldview, and that pro-lifers or evangelical types have no chance of playing leadership roles in the Democratic Party: it seems a pretty absurd claim, given that Harry Reid, the new Dem Senate leader, is a devout Mormon and staunchly pro-life (see http://activote.ontheissues.org/AVA/Senate/Harry_Reid.htm, if you don't believe me). And as for Republican tolerance, I wonder what Arlen Specter would have to say about that in private these days (or Lincoln Chafee or Jim Jeffords). Matt's buddy may be a moderate in the Republican Party, but if so he's part of a vanishing breed. This is not to say there isn't intolerance of social conservative viewpoints in the Dem Party. Of course, there is, just as there is a quite a bit of ideological groupthink -- and an immense amount of liberal bashing -- within the GOP. I'll wager that Matt's buddy is not getting questioned within the party about his off-the-reservation views is precisely because he lives in a Dem bastion like Seattle, where Republicans' minority status makes them more willing to accept ideological heterodoxy. I'd be very surprised if there weren't many places in eastern Washington, where if moderate Magnolia man started spouting off his pro-environment, pro-gay, anti-death penalty views at Republican gatherings, he'd didn't get an earful (or worse). And that's not quite as bad a thing as Matt makes it out to be; parties exist both to win elections, which is about winning support from as many people as possible, no matter what their views, and to get things done, which necessitates a certain amount of ideological clarity.

Posted by: Sandeep on November 19, 2004 05:14 PM
4. Well said Matt - and I implore you to tell that same thing to Chris Vance in an e-mail if you have the time chairmanvance@wsrp.org because he needs to hear this from more and more of us. Meanwhile (and seriously) we are working on bring Rudy Giuliani to town to showcase 'outreach' to urban Republicans and Dinocrats. Keep speaking out!

Posted by: P. Scott Cummins on November 19, 2004 05:18 PM
5. Sandeep, I have been a state convention delegate three times (many more county conventions), worked on many statewide campaigns, worked as a staffer in Washington D.C. for Slade Gorton, have a personal friendship going back almost twenty years with Dino Rossi, AND own property and have another residence in EASTERN Washington ranch country. Oh, and I write a column in the weekly paper here in Magnolia expousing these views. Thanks for bringing up Senator Reid - he is the Democrat exception that proves the rule - and to the Republican moderates you mention can I add our own Norm Maleng - but also Olympia Snowe, William Cohen, John Danforth, Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger and on and...

Posted by: P. Scott Cummins on November 19, 2004 05:31 PM
6. P. Scott, I'm probably the wrong messenger. I'm not a Republican or a city dweller, and I live on the wrong coast. I am just interested in urban anthropology because I just can't figure out why people who live in cities choose to elect liberal democrats whose policies seem to make cities more and more unliveable.

If, on the other hand, you need outreach to suburban, post-gay, single parents, I might be of more help.

Posted by: Matt J. Kurlander on November 19, 2004 08:28 PM
7. Matt, that is probably the first time I've heard the phrase post-gay.

Posted by: bmvaughn on November 20, 2004 12:43 AM
8. I've been giving this some more thought. Here's my theory of why Republicans have a tough time with urban voters.

Cities essentially have three strata of voters. At the top are the wealthy elites. Their wealth insulates them from the effects of bad schools, poor public services, and high taxes. They are very susceptible to the left-liberal manipulation of guilt over their privileged status, so they vote democrat.

The bottom strata are the poor, and let's face it, in America, you seldom find smart and poor together for very long. These voters are easy to manipulate into voting democrat. Payoffs to a few "community leaders" coupled with the tendency of the chronically poor to blame others for their circumstances keeps them in the tent.

What's left of the middle class in the cities are primarily public employees -- bureaucrats, police, fire, and teachers. Obviously, a lower-tax, smaller government message isn't going to appeal to them.

On states that are on the red blue margin --- Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania --- Republicans need to get their message to suburban moderates, if they want to win in those states. I don't know if the cities are "doable."

Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on November 20, 2004 07:55 AM
9. I don't think the cities are doable. Those mentioned above, wealthy elites, urban poor, and public sector middle class, have interests and goals fundamentally at odds with those outside the boundary. It's seen in public debate, but comes from a fundamentally different world view.

This can be seen in the issues being debated today. Transportation, for example. The Legislature says they will fund the basic replacement for the viaduct; anything above that will have to be paid for by Seattle. Seattle wants regional funding for that difference, I as part of that region want no part of it. Let them pay for their own enhancements.

Those are fundamental differences which I think cannot be bridged; there is no compromise position. There can only be winners or losers. Add to that list 405 expansion (roads versus transit) and CAO. Tent cities.

Posted by: South County on November 21, 2004 09:52 AM
10. interesting debate, i'm glad i took a few minutes out of my research for a theology class on the east coast to read this conversation. never been to seattle hope to visit someday.

my two cents? scott raises a new idea to me. i think that there are a wide variety of characters under both umbrellas, and its unfair to classify all dem's or republicans as fundamental or liberal or what have you.

but good for you guys, you all sound wicked smart.

i googled "Politics and Fundamentalists" and found myself here.

interesting stuff, glad to hear about real republicans for once.

good luck to y'all.

Posted by: Peter on May 31, 2005 01:00 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?