Don't be Cavalier With Faith
The two big "lessons" of the resounding victory of Democrat Tim Kaine in the Virginia's governor's race are: 1) Mark Warner enjoyed a victory almost as big as Kaine's; and 2) that Democrats can talk about "faith and values" and win.
I have no disagreement with point #1 -- Warner has enjoyed a huge boost, but Democrats must be careful in interpreting the right lessons from Kaine's victory.
"Tim Kaine's victory proves that Democrats can also run on family values and faith and win," says a DNC talking points memo (to be sure, a far different beast than our favorite Talking Points Memo!)The flaw in this analysis is that a candidate can't "run" on family values and faith. You either have it or you don't. Too often, Democrats feel that they have to talk about values so they gather their advisers to put together the "values" speech - or even worse, start peppering their talks with the word "values" and "faith." Some go further and believe that winning over "values" voters means embracing a conservative social agenda.
The truth is that Tim Kaine is a religious guy, and talking about how his faith affects his life wasn't a stretch. More importantly, Kaine used his faith to explain why he is opposed to the death penalty. Let's unpack this.
First, Kaine shows that one does not have to move "right" in order to win values voters. While I think that the death penalty doesn't cut as a social issue as it once did or like abortion and gay rights still does, taking that stance is still brave, especially in Virginia.
That takes me to my second point. What Kaine showed voters, above all, was that he had core convictions. He knew that being against the death penalty was unpopular with the right, but he stuck to it. Similarly, Kaine stuck to his pro-life beliefs even though that was unpopular with the left. As Amy Sullivan points out, Kaine was consistent -- and that's what counts.
Telling people what they don't want to hear isn't about one's religion, it's about leadership. And while various consultants will tell you that you have to say X or do Y to get elected, more often than not, you just have to show beliefs and stick to your guns. Some may say that doing so is a cynical ploy to reposition oneself a la Clinton and Sister Souljah. But think about the most popular political figures in politics today: John McCain, Rudy Giuiliani, and even Barack Obama consistently tell people what they don't want to hear. Call it what you want -- independence, straight talk, or honesty. I call it backbone. For Tim Kaine, his core beliefs were rooted in his Catholicism. But it doesn't have to be religion. So before Democrats start breaking out their Bibles or begin to natter on and on about "faith" and "values," remember that people just want leaders who are leaders, and that takes sticking up for what you believe in.
backbone and consistency are good.
But for many religious voters in the US, the language of faith is the language they know and respond to best.
That's why the Carter's, Clinton's and Kaine's can succeed where others fail by spicing up their speeches with such language.
And that's why Bush ladens his speeches too much with such language, often in terrible ways that replace the US for the role normally reserved for the Christian Church.
And so the debate remains...
dlw
November 9, 2005 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Telling people what they don't want to hear" is a sensible tactic only if what they don't want to hear is pretty removed from their daily life. But when it actually matters, it usually indicates gross inconsideration and political stupidity. One example: going into Saint Rose of Lima Church and telling the priest that the best way to reduce the abortion rate is for his parish to provide free condoms and morning after pills - which is surely true - is just plain nuts.
As for "just showing people you stick to your beliefs" being a good idea, I say no, no, no!
I say you show someone you have good ideas and you eloquently articulate them. And you show people you have damn good reasons for believing those ideas are good. And you fight for them, because you believe them to be good.
However, if one of those good ideas turns out not to be working very well, you must show the intelligence and courage to change your mind, fast.
That is what leadership is about, my friend.
November 9, 2005 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
While values certainly have a role in politics, it is hard to give much credence to those of a professed Catholic -- unless they acknowledge that they are a proponent only of the wisdom of the church and not the dogma and doctrine. In an enlightened society, many voters might have a problem with an organization that does not allow women to have an active role in the leadership structure. There are those who also might have a problem with a leadership structure that (1) permits the abuse of children and (2) promotes population policies that were formulated in a period when the earth had a few billion less people. (Maybe both are a consequence of the aforementioned gender imbalance.) Unless and until Democratic candidates run on the wisdom of religion and not the dogma and doctrine, the Democratic party will be no better than the opposition -- a party that is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the religious and corporate fundamentalists.
November 9, 2005 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kaine did what made sense and, incidentally, what was right, given his convictions and background, and good for him; but if there is a larger lesson, it has to answer the following questions:
(1) How, if at all, did Kaine's approach affect the election?
(2) Can an equally principled and sincere, but non-religious candidate do the same sort of thing and win outside of solidly blue states?
(3) If the answer to (2) is "no," then what?
Discuss.
November 9, 2005 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's also look at the fate of Randy Kelly, DLC, "centrist", socially conservative, Catholic who believed that what his socially conservative Catholic city of St. Paul wanted was an embrace of George Bush. So Democrat Kelly embraced Bush and signed on to Zell Miller values.
Results: Kelly is the first incumbent mayor to be defeated in over 30 years. His challenger from the left got 70% of the vote.
November 9, 2005 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huzzah, amen, kudos, keep on saying it.
You want honesty and authenticity from politicians? Then don't have a hissy fit if they don't pander to every activist group that labels itself "the base" but when you get one that actually dares to say to that group that they don't agree, even suggesting that the group might have gotten a little full of itself listening only to echoes.
This kind of honesty to self is what some disgruntled Republicans seem to be looking for, and they are instead still seeing that which Michael Scheuer, once Mr. Anonymous of CIA-terrorism-task-force, pegged here in "One Unhappy Republican":
You want authenticity? Then cut the outrage when they don't pander to your exacting tastes. Extreme liberals have to let go of the zealotry and realize they are a minority, they have to horsetrade to accomplish things.
This is a country that prizes individuality. The most individualistic politicians are the ones that end up being the historic heroes. Every time you try to make a politician fit "the people's platform," you're walking on dangerous ground. This has nothing to do with pandering to polls, the politician involved has to pay attention to the polls within his own consitutency, and chose those issues from those polls that fit with his own beliefs. That doesn't mean making up a personality that panders to all the party's issue groups; there is no such person, and that appears phony to most people.
November 9, 2005 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Results: Kelly is the first incumbent mayor to be defeated in over 30 years. His challenger from the left got 70% of the vote.
A new false meme to console the "moving left wins" crowd. In fact, the guy who beat Kelly is a pro-business centrist, just like Kelly. Kelly lost because he was on the side of Bush, Pawlenty, and Norm Coleman, all Republicans, and none of them popular right now, particularly in St. Paul, a strongly Democratic city.
This stuff simply amazes me, that people can believe it so strongly that any and every event is twisted until it supports the "move left" chant. It resembles electoral politics far less than it does religion.
November 9, 2005 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good possibility IMO.
An equally good possibility IMO is that it might just be that pro-life won the election.
November 9, 2005 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't think this is likely. I would bet that a majority in VA actually support abortion rights, albeit with restrictions. And the most hardcore pro-lifers were going to vote for Gilmore always.
November 9, 2005 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are in denial. The guy that bought the "move right" meme is the one who lost by 40 points. The premise that the base is out of touch with the public is false.
November 9, 2005 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
People Just Want Leaders Who are Leaders
Preaching to the choir in this corner at least
But I fear the National Party has only praying marmots
I pray we find leaders.
November 9, 2005 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser
You are spot on. Carter and Clinton could talk about faith because they probably talked abut faith from childhood and they came across authentically when they did so. Kerry and Dean sounded like they were doing so at gun point.
One of Democrats big problems for 30 years is that whether fair or not they also seem to have their finger in the air and don't know how to talk from their hearts.
You are so correct that we have to learn to accept Democrats who we generally agree with but who will tell us off also.
November 9, 2005 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a Virginian and I love Tim Kaine. He's an honest and principled person. But the reason he won was not just his virtues, it was that his opponent was over the top in attempting to vilify him. Tim Kaine was a public defender and his opponent ran negative ads implying that there was something wrong with Tim defending the legal rights of murderers. His opponent tried to make an issue of Tim's moral (but not legal) opposition to the death penalty. Even many conservative Virginians were offended by the implications of these negative ads. Even so, the election was fairly close. I don't think any more can be made of the Kaine victory except that Kaine's supporters worked very hard for him, and Kilgore ran a horribly negative, senseless campaign. I wish it were a bellweather for the future, but I don't think it is.
November 9, 2005 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain, Rudy Giuiliani, and even Barack Obama consistently tell people what they don't want to hear.
Is Kenneth Baer an undercover Rove operative out stumping for McCain and Guliani by framing them this way?
John McCain used to be a stand up guy. I probably would have voted for him over Al Gore because of his views on campaign finance reform. I lost all respect for him when he was out stumping for Bush who you know he absolutely despises. He has made me ill lately with his kissing up to the fundamentalists. He came out in favor of teachng Intelligent Design in schools. Is that telling people what they don't want to hear? He is kissing Falwell's ass now. What you say is no longer true of McCain.
AS for Guliani, when has he showed the kind of character you are talking about? He seems pretty opportnistic to me. He has certainly been modifying his positions in hopes of getting the nomination as well. Do you really think that the first thing he thought when the planes hit the world trade center buildings was "Thank God George Bush is president?" Rudy will not get the nomination once people see his dirty laundry which is extensive (three divorces, cheating on wives, shady business deals, etc).
How about Russ Feingold? There is a guy who has been consistent and always says what he thinks is right regardless if people want to hear it or not. He is your real maverick. For some reason he did not pop into Kenneth's mind.
November 9, 2005 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Guliani's baggage and under the radar scandals will gring him down. The conservative family base when they find out about his three divorces, and his cheating they will go crazy. As for McCain, people flat out like the guy. When he talks people believe what he is saying and that he is not weighted down by ideology and wants to do everything possible to help people. Even us Democrats have a high approval rating for him. He may not be any of those things that people see him as, but nonetheless people believe it. McCain will have to get past the far right to win the nomination, but I feel he can. We can still beat him though with the right candidate. A person I feel really knows how to talk about values, and faith without overwhelming some voters is John Edwards. John Edwards is the type of Democrat that nothing or any obstacle is impossible for him to overcome. I like Russ Feingold, but sadly, since he is of Jewish faith many Christian voters will have a hard time voting for him. Not that our country is anti-semetic but people want to vote for someone with the same religious values that they know. I wish this was not true, but it is. Hopefully, in the future politics will actually go by the principle of "seperation of church and state," but for now it does not.
November 11, 2005 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I truly believe the Virginia win will be attributed to Mark Warner. The election propelled the man to superstar status. "The New Hope," is something I have heard Mark Warner being called, as if he is Luke Skywalker from Star Wars. This given attention will give Warner national spotlight, and incredible reputation, which will make the cash come in quick when he runs, which he could pay for the primary with his own funds if he had to. If I had to put money on it, considering what are party is looking for, which is an good Democrat that can win in South and talk about values, Mark Warner will be our nominee in 2008 with John Edwards as a dark horse. Then Mark Warner wanting to win, and smart enough to know the need to win the Midwest, and need someone with Foreign Policy experience and lots of experience in general will pick Evan Bayh because his homestate is in the heart of the Midwest and right next to the crucial Ohio.
November 11, 2005 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink