Study: Stricter voting ID rules hurt ‘04 turnout

A study by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University shows turnout in 2004 was about 4% lower in states that required voters to sign their name or produce documentation. Hispanic turnout was 10% lower; the difference was about 6% for blacks and Asian-Americans.

Kevin Drum:

By a substantial margin, the Indiana residents most likely to possess photo ID turn out to be whites, the middle aged, and high-income voters. And while this is undoubtedly just a wild coincidence, these are also the three groups most like to vote for Republicans. […] Overall, 91% of registered Republicans had photo IDs compared to only 83% of registered Democrats.

But like I said, this is probably just a coincidence. I’m sure Karl Rove and the RNC had no idea that the demographics broke down like this. Right?

From Art Levine, writing in The American Prospect:

But Republicans were not deterred by their loss in civil court and pressed for a criminal investigation, a probe which U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias started on the same day that the court ruled against the GOP. Iglesias was a true believer in the menace of voter fraud. As one of just two U.S. attorneys in the nation to form such task forces, he was invited to lecture other U.S. attorneys in 2005 as part of the annual Justice Department ballot-integrity conference.

Iglesias’ efforts weren’t enough for Patrick Rogers, the Republican National Lawyers Association point person in the state, who mounted a campaign to pressure Iglesias to bring criminal charges before the election, rather than form a task force. Indeed, even before Iglesias concluded in 2006 that there wasn’t enough evidence to indict on voter fraud, major Republicans in the state had started asking the Bush administration for his removal. In early December 2006, Iglesias was one of seven U.S. attorneys whom the Justice Department fired.

Today, Iglesias says of voter fraud: “It’s like the boogeymen parents use to scare their children. It’s very frightening, and it doesn’t exist.”

From Art Levine (again), this time in The Huffington Post:

“Black voters in Dallas, Texas in 2006, after Mr. Agerwal joined the Justice Department, received a letter that said if you were registered by ACORN, they’re a fraudulent organization, and if you try to vote, you’ll be prosecuted and arrested at the polls.” He testified that he had alerted the Justice Department, but no action was taken. Project Vote, ACORN’s partner in managing voting registration drives, also contacted the Dallas FBI, which declined to investigate the intimidating mailers sent to thousands of African-Americans.

The FBI belatedly responded to Project Vote in late December 2006, asserting that “no factual predication of voter intimidation was established.” The FBI’s decision not to investigate, critics say, is the latest sign that politicization appears to have compromised the nominally non-partisan law enforcement agency.

Moreover, the Justice Department’s response was part of a striking pattern of indifference to alleged intimidation violations. In fact, The Huffington Post has learned, President Bush’s Justice Department hasn’t brought a single prosecution or lawsuit in more than seven years on behalf of any African-American voters who faced direct voter intimidation threats and challenges…

[…]such threatening incidents include black-shirted, gun-toting thugs thwarting Latino voters in Tucson, Arizona in 2006, and fliers from a fake “Milwaukee Black Voters League” distributed during the 2004 election in Milwaukee inner-city neighborhoods warning people that if anyone in their family had been convicted of a crime, “you can get ten years in prison” if you dared to vote. Unfortunately, such cases don’t seem to have been deemed worthy of serious investigation by DOJ, and certainly no prosecutions or lawsuits have resulted.

With US economies elections often quite close, the 2-4% gain that Republicans gain in elections because they’re led by cheating, lying racists actually does make a real difference. And the system is self-perpetuating; the more racist Republicans are in charge, the more racist Republicans are appointed to positions from which they can make sure that crimes against non-white voters are ignored.

For regular coverage of voting rights and voting access issues, check out the Voting Matters Blog.

The death of discourse is funny.

From the Texas Supreme Court’s 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision regarding a Texas law which banned owning more than six sex toys:

“To determine the constitutional standard applicable to this claim, we must address what right is at stake. Plaintiffs claim that the right at stake is the individual’s substantive due process right to engage in private intimate conduct free from government intrusion. The State proposes a different right for the Plaintiffs: “the right to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.”

Hilzoy points out that these sort of arguments about how to frame Constitutional questions come up all the time:

The Constitution does not mention Mormon Temple Garments, for instance, and it certainly does not explicitly grant a right to wear any particular style of underwear. But it does grant the right to freedom of religion, and absent some compelling state interest in regulating underwear, this means that Mormons have the right to wear their Temple Garments, however ludicrous questions like “do you mean to say that the right to wear a particular sort of underwear is guaranteed in the Constitution?” might sound. […]

I mention this only because I’m tired of hearing arguments of the form: The Constitution does not mention X, so how can there be a constitutional right to X? (For X equal to: abortion, medicinal marijuana, etc., etc., etc.)

The Court didn’t buy the state’s framing, by the way, so any Texas readers should feel free to buy any number of sex toys today.

I just received a phone call from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), who wanted to ask me an important poll question: “As a Republican, are you willing to cede the White House to Hilary Clinton in 2008?” I told them no.

The call also featured a recorded message from Representative Tom Cole. According to Cole, “True conservatives in Washington have been quiet for too long” when it comes to criticizing Hilary Clinton and the liberals, but they’re going to stop being so reticent in 2008, if I help by donating some money. It strikes me that Cole himself is a conservative, and he spends most of his time in Washington. Why does he need my money to cease being quiet — couldn’t he just, you know, start talking?

Also, Cole says Clinton intends to legalize gay marriage. I wish! Not for the first time, I find myself wishing that the fantasy Democrats conservatives argue against existed in real life, so I could vote for them.

From NPR:

The nasal spray is a drug called naloxone, or Narcan. It blocks the brain receptors that heroin activates, instantly reversing an overdose.

Doctors and emergency medical technicians have used Narcan for years in hospitals and ambulances. But it doesn’t require much training because it’s impossible to overdose on Narcan. […] New data compiled for NPR by researcher Alex Kral of the consulting firm RTI International show that more than 2,600 overdoses have been reversed in 16 programs operating across the nation. […]

But Dr. Bertha Madras, deputy director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy, opposes the use of Narcan in overdose-rescue programs.

“First of all, I don’t agree with giving an opioid antidote to non-medical professionals. That’s No. 1,” she says. “I just don’t think that’s good public health policy.”

Madras says drug users aren’t likely to be competent to deal with an overdose emergency. More importantly, she says, Narcan kits may actually encourage drug abusers to keep using heroin because they know overdosing isn’t as likely.

Madras says the rescue programs might take away the drug user’s motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment.

As Quirkybird comments, “Yes, because extreme compulsion is easily overcome by the thought that something bad might happen. That’s why people no longer have sex or commit crimes!”

This is an example of how the “war on drugs” — as well as the moral absolutism of the conservative movement (”drug users baaaad!”)– has undermined mercy, compassion, and common sense. Trying to make it more likely that people will die of an overdose, in the hopes that the threat of death will make them seek treatment, isn’t just incredibly ignorant of how people actually work; it’s a disgustingly callous indifference to human life.

By the way, according to the article, studies have found that the Narcan program makes it more likely that addicts will seek treatment. But even if the Bush administration wasn’t wrong on the facts, they’d still be wrong on the morality.

(Anyone else reminded of the conservatives who opposed the HPV vaccine on the grounds that if women have a lower chance of getting cancer they might have more sex before marriage?)

I’m reminded of the episode of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” in which Spike commented, “If every vampire who said he was at the crucifixion was actually there, it would have been like Woodstock.”

A defensive Romney was peppered with questions today on exactly what he meant when he said — most recently on Meet the Press — that he “saw” his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. Recent articles have indicated that his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, didn’t march with the civil-rights leader.

Admitting that he didn’t see the march with his own eyes, he said, “I ’saw’ him in the figurative sense.”

“The reference of seeing my father lead in civil rights,” he said, “and seeing my father march with Martin Luther King is in the sense of this figurative awareness of and recognition of his leadership.”

“I’ve tried to be as accurate as I can be,” he continued, smiling firmly. “If you look at the literature or look at the dictionary, the term ’saw’ includes being aware of — in the sense I’ve described.”

The questioning did not relent. “I’m an English literature major,” he insisted at one point. “When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there.”

Of course, since the Patriots play football, no one would see them at baseball’s World Series. (If Kerry, Gore or Edwards made that error, it would haunt them forever — elitist! girly-man! faker! — but Romney will be given a pass.) That aside, however, what a pathetically lame defense.

Incidently, Romney’s lie about marching with Martin Luther King Jr used to be more extreme. This week, he only lied about his father marching with MLK. Thirty years ago, he claimed that he himself marched with MLK.

As I’ve said before, since conservatives lack credibility on race, they cite MLK to “borrow” MLK’s credibility for their own purposes.

This is a useful tactic for politicians¹ because the large majority of Americans have forgotten the policies MLK actually advocated for. So claiming allegiance with MLK’s memory is a good way for politicians to pretend they’re against white supremacy without actually committing to any policy positions that might have the effect of reducing white supremacy at all.

UPDATE: Mark Schmitt points out that “in fact, Governor George Romney had an extremely impressive civil rights record.” But he also asks:

Is there the slightest reason to believe that in the same position as his father, as it was becoming clear that the Republicans’ path to the presidency ran through the South (Goldwater secured the nomination in 1964 in part by opposing the Civil Rights Act, and Strom Thurmond switched parties that year), [Mitt Romney] would have shown similar courage? Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting adaptation to whatever the Republican prejudice of the moment is (anti-immigration rhetoric, or denouncing the kind of health plan he enacted as “socialized medicine”) suggests that he wouldn’t have been doing any marching.

1. Democrats and Republicans alike (back)

Reagan started us on the path to capitulating to Muslims! We forget what guts it took Bush to stay in the Iraq War! Bush beaten up by scientists! MASS PRODUCED EMBRYOS!

I laughed. And then I laughed some more.

Near the end, OSC positions himself as a centrist. He wants us to know that the insane Right is just as bad as the insane Left. Well, honey, you’d know. Nice try at claiming to be a moderate, though.

A fascinating New York Times article, “The Evangelical Crackup,” argues that the Evangelical right is changing; Bush disillusionment and the passing away of the elders is making a new Evangelical right that will be more focused on social work and fighting poverty, and less on restricting reproductive rights and fighting the gay menace.

Meanwhile, a younger generation of evangelical pastors — including the widely emulated preachers Rick Warren and Bill Hybels — are pushing the movement and its theology in new directions. There are many related ways to characterize the split: a push to better this world as well as save eternal souls; a focus on the spiritual growth that follows conversion rather than the yes-or-no moment of salvation; a renewed attention to Jesus’ teachings about social justice as well as about personal or sexual morality. However conceived, though, the result is a new interest in public policies that address problems of peace, health and poverty — problems, unlike abortion and same-sex marriage, where left and right compete to present the best answers.

The backlash on the right against Bush and the war has emboldened some previously circumspect evangelical leaders to criticize the leadership of the Christian conservative political movement. “The quickness to arms, the quickness to invade, I think that caused a kind of desertion of what has been known as the Christian right,” Hybels, whose Willow Creek Association now includes 12,000 churches, told me over the summer. “People who might be called progressive evangelicals or centrist evangelicals are one stirring away from a real awakening.”

I don’t know. The article’s author, David Kirkpatrick, has apparently put years into learning about the Evangelical movement, and I hesitate to question his expertise. But even so, what’s going on right now could just be a temporary retrenching in the wake of the failed Bush presidency; a more successful right-wing presidency, next year or four years after that or four after that, could bring all the borderline evangelicals right back into the fold.

Reading his article reminded me of the many right-wingers who have confidently declared feminism to be dead, again and again and again and again, every five or ten years for as long as I can recall. And, for that matter, conservatives who just a few years ago were pontificating on why it is the Democrats would Never Win Elections Again. They were wrong, and I suspect lefties who confidently predict the death of the Christian right are wrong for the same basic reason: It’s easy to believe what we wish to be true.¹

Over at Orcinus, Sara Robinson argues that we are going to see two Evangelical futures; much of the base will peel away into the mainstream, as the Times article argues is already happening, but a new hard-core of radical right Christians will remain, focused on Muslims rather than Blacks, queers or Mexicans as the new symbol of Ultimate Evilhood. (Robinson argues that the younger generation of evangelicals simply lacks the ferocity of homophobia necessary to maintain lesbians and gays as the ultimate boogie monsters). I’m not totally persuaded by Robinson — for example, her belief that anti-migrant xenophobia won’t find much traction in the US seems very optimistic, and very unlike what’s going on in the country today — but her discussion is smart and damned interesting. (I’m not sure that right-wing Christians will get much out of it other than pissed off, however.)

1. Since I wrote this paragraph, I came across this excellent post in the Revealer making the same argument about the Times article. (back)

Notice a pattern?

Femnisting: “Bush has appointed a birth control opponent Susan Orr to head our nation’s family planning office.” From the Washington Post:

Susan Orr, most recently an associate commissioner in the Administration for Children and Families, was appointed Monday to be acting deputy assistant secretary for population affairs. She will oversee $283 million in annual grants to provide low-income families and others with contraceptive services, counseling and preventive screenings.

In a 2001 article in The Washington Post, Orr applauded a Bush proposal to stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr, then an official with the Family Research Council.

Barak Obama: Bush nominates anti-voting-right activist to Federal Election Committee.

President George W. Bush has recently nominated Hans von Spakovsky to serve on the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It’s the job of the FEC to regulate elections and disclose campaign finance contributions. […] From 2001 to 2005, von Spakovsky served as an official at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division where he amassed a record of undermining voting rights¹, creating restrictions that would make it harder for poor and minority communities to vote, and putting partisan politics above upholding our civil rights.

It seems likely that Obama will be successful in blocking von Spakovsky’s nomination, thankfully.

Brad Blog: Bush’s Chief of Voting Rights Supports Unconstitutional I.D. Requirements at Polling Places

The remarks by Tanner, video-taped and first reported by The BRAD BLOG, were meant in support of his decision to allow a Photo ID restriction at polling places in Georgia, over the recommendation of four out of five of the career attorneys in the Civil Rights unit. The law would later be found unconstitutional by two federal judges, one of whom declared the practice to be a “Jim Crow-era poll tax”.

1. More on von Spakovsky’s record here. (back)

I received an email from a reader about a round table on the Tavis Smiley Show. Apparently, Tavis will have a panel discussing Thomas’s book and his appearance on 60 Minutes. Panelists are Marc Morial, President and CEO of The National Urban League, Princeton Professor Cornel West, and Columbia University President, Farah Jasmine Griffin. If you are in New York, the Tavis Smiley Show airs at 12 midnight on PBS.  If you are in another market, I’m not sure of the time, but you can check you local PBS station.
Did anyone else see the 60 Minutes interview with Thomas?   I thought he came off as really bitter.  He kept using the anchor’s name in a pejorative way.  It was very uncomfortable from my vantage point.  For those interested in abortion and sexual harassment issues, Thomas made the claim that the controversy surrounding his appointment was really about abortion.  The panel on the Tavis Smiley Show will discuss this issue in some depth.

I think the answer is no. Nearly all of the Republicans would not participate in the Univision debate((If you don’t know, Univision is a Spanish language network; however, the debate was conducted in English.)), and now they are ducking out of a debate on minority issues hosted at Morgan State University by African American commentator Tavis Smiley. Here’s a summary:

Arizona Sen. John McCain, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney have declined to participate in the Sept. 27 debate at Morgan State University. “I feel good,” Smiley said, about the odds of getting former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. Five candidates trailing in national and state polls will be there.

The Univision debate, co-sponsored by the University of Miami, was scheduled for Sept. 16, but canceled after only one candidate — McCain — accepted. “We’re looking for a new date,” said Univision spokeswoman Rosemary Mercedes. However, Romney and Giuliani already have declined.

Republican campaigns blamed scheduling conflicts for their candidate’s absence from the Baltimore debate, citing, for example, a McCain speech on Iraq and a flurry of fundraising events before the third-quarter deadline on Sept. 30. All eight Democrats participated in their PBS debate at Howard University — and that was on June 28, a similarly frenetic fundraising period.

Kevin Madden, a Romney spokesman, said his candidate has “a very heavy travel schedule” that has led him to decline invitations to several debates.

Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, chairman of the national party, has said GOP candidates are not snubbing Hispanics; they are just busy with other campaign events.

Smiley said he intends to press his case tonight on NBC’s Tonight Show with Jay Leno. “We’re talking about one 90-minute conversation,” he said. “It gives these Republicans a wonderful opportunity. They complain all the time that black and brown voters won’t give them a chance. We offer a platform on PBS.”

Republican presidential candidates typically receive less than 15% of the black vote in general elections and tend to oppose policies important to some minority voters, such as affirmative action. Right now they are competing for conservative primary voters.

You have to wonder–is this 1900 or 2007? How can any reasonable person snub entire constituencies like this? We not talking about just two events. Only Tom Tancredo agreed to appear in an NAACP forum in Detroit, and they have rejected other forums oriented towards blacks and Latinos.

This is so pathetic that even a few of their fellow Republicans are chiding them. Check out this article from the Washington Post:

“We sound like we don’t want immigration; we sound like we don’t want black people to vote for us,” said former congressman Jack Kemp (N.Y.), who was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996. “What are we going to do — meet in a country club in the suburbs one day? If we’re going to be competitive with people of color, we’ve got to ask them for their vote.”

Making matters worse, some Republicans believe, is that the decision to bypass the Morgan State forum comes after all top GOP candidates save McCain declined invitations this month to a debate on Univision, the most-watched Hispanic television network in the United States. The event was eventually postponed.

“For Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), who has not yet ruled out a White House run himself. “I hope they will reverse their decision and change their schedules. I see no excuse — this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months. It’s just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That’s baloney.”

Former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman urged candidates to “reconsider this opportunity to lay out their vision and other opportunities in the future.”

“Every one of these candidates I’ve talked to is sincerely committed to offering real choices to African American and Hispanic voters, and in my opinion have records that will appeal to many of these voters,” he added.

Mehlman, a longtime aide to President Bush, aggressively courted the minority vote as RNC chairman in 2005-06. He recruited black candidates to run for office as Republicans and condemned electoral tactics that showed hints of race-baiting.

Mehlman’s successor at the RNC was Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.), a backer of legislation that would allow illegal immigrants now in the country to stay and eventually become citizens.

Except for McCain, the top GOP candidates have distanced themselves from that proposal, which Kemp worries will become another strike against the GOP with Hispanics. Bush received 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, but the Republican base remains inflamed about illegal immigration, leading the candidates to focus on border-control proposals.

Some may say, “Why try to court votes that you have little chance of winning?” However, this misses the larger issues. First, this will not only alienate blacks and Latinos. Many moderate whites will find this suspicious, so they risk alienating whites who would like to see the Republican party as non-racist and open to everyone. Unlike their black and Latino counterparts, I think moderate whites will be much more likely to bamboozled by the empty platitudes about reaching out to people of color. The second point is that this is demographic suicide for Republicans. The country is changing, and no matter how many border fences they try to build, they are faced the reality that people are color are going to make up half the population in this country within the next 30-40 years. When you spend an inordinate amount of time lambasting the largest minority group, then you could hurt your party’s future, as this article from the Hispanic Business Journal notes.

Before I end up writing a how to manual for Republicans :) , let me make a few more criticisms. The Republicans know that they have created policies that are harmful to blacks and Latinos, which is why they don’t have the nerve to tell Latinos to their face that want to cut immigration and incarcerate immigrants. They don’t have the nerve to tell blacks that they are fine with the fact that numerous blacks are sitting in jails on drug charges while whites with similar charges go free. If they really believed that their policies are helping people, then they don’t need to hide from people of color and pretend like they don’t exist.

Idaho Senator Larry Craig was arrested and pled guilty to disorderly conduct after he was caught propositioning an undercover police officer for sex in an airport bathroom.  Pam has the run down on his votes on key gay/lesbian policy issues:

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

This would be funny is this guy didn’t wield so much power, but at least he didn’t say a black man scared him into offering a blowjob like the last Republican who was caught doing this.

Is anyone keeping count of how many Republican politicians have been caught in gay sex scandals this year?

I’m going to organize this as bullet points for each episode. 

Gods Jewish Warriors

• I thought this was the best one of the series. 
• It was balanced in showing both the extremist settlers, and the more mainstream Jews who were opposed to the extremists.
• They gave ultra-orthodox Jews a free pass on the sexism issue, which was unfair.  They noted the treatment of women by Muslim and Christian fundamentalists, but mentioned nothing that I recollect.
• I was also impressed with how they discussed the international dimensions of the settler movement, and the fundamentalist Christians and right wing Jews who provided money and support to the settler movement.
• They also discussed the changes throughout history and covering the various peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors.  One of the most disturbing parts of the special was the discussion of the killing of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.  If you don’t know the story, you can click on the link.

God’s Muslim Warriors

• I felt like this one was a little more predictable because we are quite accustomed to critiques of Muslim fundamentalists–people promoting violence, Jihad, etc.  I do wish they would have highlighted more of the moderate leaders, and more people opposed to Islamic fundamentalism.  They did interview a few people who left extremist groups, which was interesting, but I wish they would have talked with people who were fighting these extremists all along.
• I thought the scenes of the Iranian women protesting were the most moving.  Heart has several postings on the women’s movement in Iran; you can find them here.  Many of the Muslim countries in the Middle East have draconian anti-women policies, and these policies are often justified in the name of religion.  By far one of the most consistent trends with Muslim, Christian, and Jewish extremists is their disdain for the rights of women.
• They did very good at focusing on the international dimensions of the movement; in particular the growing movement in Europe.  What I also found interesting was how both the Christian and Muslim fundamentalists were obsessed with the “cultural decay” in the West, focusing mostly on the decline in traditional definitions of family, materialism, and hedonistic popular culture. 

God’s Christian Warriors

• This was by far the worst of the three.  First, they didn’t show any of the Christian fundamentalists who advocate murder and violence.  There was a brief mention of bombing abortion clinics, but I wish they would have had an in-depth interview with someone like American terrorist Eric Rudolph or any of these people who have engaged in violence at abortion clinics. What about the Christian Identity movement?  What about Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps and his family?  They did talk with Christian fundamentalists, but they didn’t talk to the ones who engage in or promote violence like they did in the first two parts of the series.
• I was happy to see them discuss gender, and the treatment of women, especially when Christiane Amanpour told the one minister that the Taliban said the same thing as him. That was classic.  But they didnt get into the depth that they could have– discussing churches who barred women from being ministers.
• There were not enough interviews with people opposing Christian fundamentalism.  They had two ministers who stepped away from some parts of the movement.  I liked the Minnesota minister, who couldn’t figure out why these groups were so obsessed with homosexuality as a sin, but not materialism, greed, or gluttony.
• There was no coverage of the international nature of Christian fundamentalism.  You would think it is only in the US, but there are places like.  Several of the countries in the pink on this map prohibit abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, and Christian fundamentalists are responsible for promoting this in many countrries.  This list also includes some of the various Christian based terrorist groups around the world.

What do you think?

CNN is airing a special on relgious fundamentalism; it is a 3 part series.  Tonight is God’s Jewish Warriors, and in the next two days they will cover God’s Christian Warriors and God’s Muslim Warriors.  If you are watching, what do you think?

I’ve felt for a long time that the right wing here in the US puts too much faith in religion (Yes, that’s a deliberately ironic word choice).  Christianity becomes a means to solve all kinds of social problems, and perhaps some of those problems are better fixed through non-religious social institutions–governments, the economy, family, and so on. 

However, more recently I’ve also started to feel that some on the left have put too much faith in science and by extension the academy.  Now given that I am a “social scientist” (the kind some folks think are not real scientists) and an academic, this is a fairly controversial position.  It’s not that I do not think science and education are valuable, but it seems like some people on the left lose track of the fact that science is evolving (Once again, a deliberately ironic word choice), and we forget that claims of objectivity frequently have underlying assumptions and biases.  For example, even the choice of a particular subject for scientific inquiry reflects some subjectivity.  Moreover, the scientific method itself may be limiting our thinking at times.  I’m not going to give any thorough critique of the scientific method or objectivity in this post, but what I am curious about how people feel about the relationship between the social/political left and science/the academy. 

What do you think? 

I know I said much more about the left having too much faith in science and the academy, and that’s because I would like to focus on this since Alas is a progressive site and most commenters will likely agree with my statement about the right and religion.  However, I also don’t want to go into too much depth about my personal opinions on the second proposition because I’m open to persuasion on this topic.

On his blog, Clint Heine and his readers discuss Maia. Responding to Heine calling Maia a “parasite” and suggesting she’s mentally ill, “James” wrote:

Nothing a big black dildo won’t fix……

To which Heine responded,

James…..!!! Nice suggestion, go over there and tell her that :)

I’m not going to bother rebutting anything Heine and his cohorts wrote; they’re not human beings, they’re maggots and worms, and I don’t debate maggots and worms. And yes, I realize Heine and his maggoty friends doubtless consider such comments “jokes,” because they’re too stupid to know what an actual sense of humor looks like.

(I do wonder if James or Heine could look his mother, sister or girlfriend in the face and tell her “Today I said a woman on welfare whose politics I disagree with could be fixed by raping her with a big black dildo. Don’t you agree that’s how these women should be fixed, Mom?” Maybe if they imagined that they could begin to develop a vestigial, wormish understanding of what’s wrong with their “joke.” But maybe not.)

But it’s worth noting that Clint Heine (his real name) has been in a position of leadership in New Zealand politics (he used to head up the youth wing of the ACT party, which is the most right-wing party in NZ).

And it’s worth noting that there’s nothing unusual about James’ and Heine’s remarks. It’s not uncommon for female bloggers, especially feminist bloggers, to have to deal with such oh-so-hilarious rape threat jokes. The purpose of these “jokes” is to remind uppity women (especially poor women and women of color) of their place. (The pathetic nature of men who feel driven to put uppity women in their place is, I trust, obvious.)

James and Heine themselves are so meager and unimportant they barely exist. But they and their fellow maggots create an environment in the blogosphere that women have to deal with; that is important, and it’s unfair, and it’s bigoted, and it fucking sucks.

UPDATE: Maia comments.

Since 2005, I have been following the story of the Cherokee Freedmen.  The Freedmen are the descendants of Cherokee slaves, and there has been a move afoot to strip the Freedmen of their voting and citizenship rights.  They have been living, intermarrying, and actively participating in the nation for well over 100 years.  What first drew me to this story was the fascinating racial dynamics of the story; in particular I was interested in how whiteness and blackness were influencing the definition of who is/isn’t Cherokee.  However, since I started following the story more actively over the past several months, I discovered some of the other issues beyond the racial identity dynamics.  The other elephant in the room is the corrupt government of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (CNO), which is currently under the leadership of Chad Smith.  The ploy to remove the Cherokee Freedmen is just one of the many tactics that Smith and his predecessors have used to solidify their own power.

The upcoming June 23rd election pits Smith (Principal Chief) and Joe Grayson (Deputy Chief) against Stacy Leeds (Principal Chief) and Raymond Vann (Deputy Chief) .  Leeds was the first woman Justice on the Cherokee Supreme court, and she wrote the decision that initially prevented the Freedmen from being ousted from the CNO.   Leeds is also a law professor.

Chad Smith and his political allies have shown many signs that they do not like to play fair.  For example, recently the Tribal Council passed a last minute proposed Constitutional Amendment for the June 23rd ballot.  The problem–many absentee voters have already received their ballots, and the time to pursue necessary debate on the subject is minimal.  But this is just one more misdeed in a long list for Smith.  Smith and company are well connected Republicans, and Smith has even been connected to the likes of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.¹  Then, of course, there is his decision to work to disenroll the Cherokee Freedmen.  With a relatively small percentage of the CNO voting, the Freedmen were disenrolled. However, thanks to court injunctions the Freedmen will still be able to vote in this election. Having followed this for a while what seems clear is that Smith and company are much more concerned about cronyism and keeping themselves in power.  They don’t demonstrate a respect for the rule of law and Constitutional politics, and they are bankrolled by big Republican money.

As we’ve discussed before, this decision threatens to undermine the tribal sovereignty of the CNO, and the tension between the CNO and the Congressional Black Caucus is rapidly building.  I’m confident that most people of the CNO are not corrupt, anti-black racists.  You don’t have to look far to find people like Stacy Leeds, John Cornsilk, David Cornsilk, my blog friend The Local Crank, the bloggers at Wampum and professor Steve Russell, who believe that the Cherokee Nation is a strong multiracial Nation.² It was a very small minority of the Cherokee citizens who voted to disenroll the Freedmen (the turn out for the election was atrocious).

In contrast to her opponent, Stacy Leeds is the progressive candidate.  She is pro-choice; she not underwritten by the Republican party; and she supports the rule of (Constitutional) law.  She supports women rights and has been active in the effort to prevent violence against women.  Leeds doesn’t believe that race should be the basis for citizenship, and she has several other progressive elements to her platform, which you can read here. 

Chad Smith and his cronies have tried to find every way possible to subvert the rule of law, and they need to be stopped.  It looks like a Stacy Leeds administration will be able to do that. 

Other Cherokee Election Links

A Link to my Previous Cherokee Posts

Wampum is very closly following the election.

Leeds Campaign Site

On June 15th at 6PM The Cherokee Phoenix is hosting a Debate; the debate can be seen on the Cherokee Phoenix website www.cherokee.org

1. I don’t know if Smith was directly involved in any of Abramoff’s misdeeds, but what is relevant is that these are the types of folks with whom Smith associates. (back)
2. Earlier Temple 3 commented saying, “I believe the Cherokee nation has a right to self-determination - just as Africans do in the US and beyond. I suppose I need to hear more of the consequences, and there could be many. After all, I don’t suspect that those rolls were 100% correct…that would be impossible. So, what’s the appeal process? How does that work?”  I can’t comment on exactly how the appeal works–I do have some Cherokee legal folks who read this site, who may be able to explain the details.  The Cherokees do have a Constitution, and much of this is related to what appears to be Smith’s desire to change the Constitution to fit his political needs.  I personally believe that citizenship in a nation should not be based on race, and the closest analogy to this case I can think of would be if the US decided that our black citizens were no longer citizens. (back)

1) Best. Footnote. Ever.

Twelve extremely eminent law professors — Vikram Amar, Randy Barnett, Robert Bork, Alan Dershowitz, Viet Dinh, Douglas Kmiec, Gary Lawson, Earl Maltz, Thomas Merrill, Robert Nagel, Richard Parker, and Robert Pushaw — have submitted an amicus brief in defense of Scooter Libby. The judge’s order granting the request contained this footnote:

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

Curtsy: Hilzoy and The Debate Link.

2) Riborkulous and Hypoborkable.

Judge Robert Bork is suing the Yale Club of New York City for a million dollars plus punitive damanges because he fell while climbing onto a one-foot-high speaker’s dias (the dias lacked stairs or a handrail). I’m sorry to hear of Judge Bork’s injuries, and hope he recovers completely.

Nonetheless, Judge Bork better hope his case’s Judge isn’t a fan of Judge Bork’s legal opinions. To quote Judge Bork¹ :

Our expensive, capricious and unpredictable civil justice systems present precisely the kind of conflicting and costly state regulation of commerce that the Commerce Clause was designed to solve. Lawsuits, verdicts, settlements and the insurance necessary to defend and indemnify against them, are driving up the cost of goods and services everywhere, and consumers are paying the bill. The litigation explosion has no respect for the state lines because commerce and insurance are now national. Interstate commerce and trade have become the principal victims of a runaway liability system.

Courts are now meccas for every conceivable unanswered grievance or perceived injury. Juries dispense lottery-like windfalls, attracting and rewarding imaginative claims and far-fetched legal theories. Today’s merchant enters the marketplace with trepidation - anticipating from the civil justice system the treatment that his ancestors experienced with the Barbary pirates.

As The New York Personal Injury Blog points out, Bork’s case seems exceptionally weak; it is difficult to imagine Robert Bork the judge having much sympathy for Robert Bork the plantiff.

Curtsies to Overlawyered, Volokh, and (again) The Debate Link.

1. Bork and Olson, Trial Lawyers and Other Closet Federalists, Washington Times, March 9, 1995 (back)

It’s unfortunate that my post about denialism among Republican candidates for president, has in the comments become a discussion of what polls show.

It’s true, as Robert pointed out with this link, too many Democrats don’t believe in evolution. And yet, I doubt any Democratic running for President would dare admit to not believing in evolution in a national debate, whereas about a third of the Republican candidates did. That’s an important difference, but what accounts for it?

The answer is partly in the polling numbers. According to Robert’s link, more Democrats (49%) believe in evolution than not (47%). That’s within the margin of error, admittedly, but it’s clear that the anti-science folks have a strength among Republican voters they lack among Democrats. 49% of Kerry voters versus 28% of Bush voters believe in evolution; 24% of Kerry voters vs 45% of Bush voters want Creationism taught in the classrooms. Those differences aren’t small.

Even more important than the polling numbers, though, is how voters in each party prioritize their beliefs. Denialism exist among Democratic voters — but anti-evolution Democrats aren’t forming coalitions to elect Democrats who believe in creationism and related views. Their Republican counterparts do form such coalitions. This makes a huge difference to who is electable in each party.

Among Republicans, creationism¹ — and the anti-science, anti-rationality baggage creationism carries — isn’t a barrier to high political office. Few Republican party activists will abandon a major Republican candidate who is a creationist; they can’t afford to utterly reject creationism, because the denialism creationism represents is a major part of the Republican coalition.

In contrast, for many Democratic party activists belief in creationism is a deal-breaker. Outside of Detroit, being a denialist on global warming is a deal-breaker. Thinking that one could diagnose Terri Schiavo via a TV screen would be, among Democratic party activists, a deal-breaker.

The issue isn’t who has a bunch of evolution denialists among their voters; both parties do (although the Republicans have many more). The issue is which party is prone to electing anti-science denialists. And this matters because anti-science denialists are incapable of governing responsibly on issues which require valuing science over ideology and religious fundamentalism.

Denialism isn’t only about creationism. It’s about FDA drug approval. It’s about who knows better what abortion procedures are safe for women: Congress or doctors. It’s about lesbian and gay couples, and about lesbian and gay parents. It’s about if Iraq is going swimmingly for the U.S.. It’s about global warming. It’s about any issue where religious fundamentalism and ideology are pulling a politician one way, while facts and science pull the other way.

And — contrary to what some of my lefty allies believe — it’s a significant difference between the two major parties.

UPDATE: Amanda comments.

1. ”Creationism” requires a rejection of evolution. So someone who says “God used evolution to create” isn’t a creationist, in my view. (back)

The three denialists were Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. McCain hesitated before admitting that he believes in evolution. (Curtsy, again, to Ezra).

Denialism has become the primary intellectual sin among conservatives. Denial of evolution, denial of global warming, denial of utter disaster in Iraq, and the Terri Schiavo embarrassment are, in a way, just four different cases of the same right-wing ineptitude. Conservatives have cultivated a denial of reality so profound that it makes it impossible for them to even acknowledge reality, let alone govern responsibly.

And yeah, not all Republicans are denialists on every issue. But enough Republicans are denialists so that denialism, and antagonism towards science, is now an intrinsic part of the Republican approach to policy. They simply can’t keep their coalition together and acknowledge reality at the same time.

I’m not a big fan of the Democrats. But at least they’re only horribly wrong part of the time. It’s at least conceivable that a Democrat will take an intelligent, responsible position on climate change; Republicans can’t do that. Reality is no longer politically viable for them.

Related news, from The Onion: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory.