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 ThisObviously, 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 PMIf, 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 PMCities 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 AMThis 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 AMmy 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