This is happening much faster, and in a much uglier way, than I had anticipated. In 2008, John McCain still had his Senate seat and most observers were able to easily place blame for his loss at the feet of the incredibly hollow Sarah Palin, an unpopular incumbent President widely panned as a failure and a steep financial crisis. In 2012, however, the cause of defeat is very difficult for Republicans to understand: their ideas, rhetoric and reputation are bad. People still generally blame President Bush for our economic woes, congressional Republicans are less popular than some famous dictators and most Conservative standard bearers are generally toxic to most Americans despite a relatively large audience within the bubble – see Glenn Beck.
I, for one, don’t think Mitt Romney was the reason he lost the election. I don’t think he ran a great campaign and he wasn’t a great candidate – besides having rich friends. He never gave a speech that had any real vision. And as a rather focused consumer of the news, I still can’t tell you what he actually believes about policy. He ran as a palatable shape-shifter who could wear the generic form of Republicanism in a primary full of toxic ideologues. Though, despite the structural advantages Republicans claimed, looking back the headwinds faced by the GOP were fairly obvious. Despite Senator McConnell’s best efforts, the President was able to accomplish a lot of big and important things in his first term. The President has made difficult decisions in very difficult circumstances. We, who voted and volunteered for President Obama in 2008, don’t generally get all of our information from the GOP propaganda bubble. So the narrative that resonated with those who occupy the right-wing media space did not resonate with, and was actually toxic to, those who don’t. The narrative of Governor Romney’s campaign seemed to be largely driven by the need to satisfy a base that was lukewarm on him to begin with and echoed many of the themes driven by a rather unhinged group of characters. Simply, Mitt Romney wanted Donald Trump’s endorsement. And late in the campaign he cozied up to Glenn Beck and Beck’s people to bridge the divide between Mormons and Evangelicals. To those who don’t see the problem with these events, let me put it this way: Donald Trump is worse than Rosie O’Donnell and you all would go ape-shit if you saw President Obama on stage accepting her endorsement. Then, imagine the President doing his best to court Louis Farrakhan, the Muslim Glenn Beck without the audience, to solidify support among Black Muslims. Such moves would serve to solidify the belief that the President and his party were not serious.
But it looks like Romney will get the blame for the loss. There is some real introspection happening on the political Right in the country. Governor Romney’s comments last week were a distraction and showed a deeply flawed vision of the American democracy. Nevertheless, I don’t think Governor Romney is entirely to blame for the loss. Over at BuzzFeed, Ben Smith writes:
There appears to be no Romney Republicanism to propagate. No Romney strategy to emulate. No Romney technology to ape. No generation shaped by his failed effort. And no Romney infrastructure to inherit, though he may still be asked to write and bundle quite a few checks. Romney’s bewildering post-election explanations of his defeat — Obama, he said, had bought off Americans — drew almost universal condemnation from leaders of his party, but the comments were more excuse than cause; party figures from Ari Fleischer to Bobby Jindal appeared to be waiting to kick Romney to the side of the road. The candidate did them a favor when he complained that Democrats had simply bought off young people and minority voters, a churlish line that erased any lingering Republican affinity for him as, when all else failed, a good-hearted guy.
Romney is being erased with record speed from his party’s books for three reasons. First, many Republicans backed him because they thought he had a good chance of winning; that appeal, obviously, is gone. Second, Romney had shallow roots, and few friends, in the national Republican Party. And those shallow roots have allowed Republicans to give him a new role: As a sort of bad partisan bank, freighted with all the generational positions and postures that they are looking to dump.
"Romney is now a toxic asset to unload," the historian Jack Bohrer remarked Saturday. "The only interesting thing left to his story is how they dispose of him."
The simplest reason for Romney’s quick fadeout is that his central promise was that he could win. He delivered immense fundraising prowess and ideological flexibility. He was never going to win partisan hearts like the two iconic, beloved losers of his father’s generation, Barry Goldwater and George McGovern.
One of the problems inherent to running as a shape shifter with no ideological core is that once you’ve lost your platform people can define you however they want. The GOP wants to unload some toxic assets and it looks like Governor Romney will be the buyer. Unfortunately for him, there is no upside.
David Frum Said:
But Mitt Romney was very wrong to see 2012 as a referendum on “stuff.” It was a referendum on the question, which candidate would do a better job promoting prosperity and creating jobs. That was the referendum that Romney and the Republican party lost. We lost both because voters did not believe in the job-creating magic of upper-income tax cuts – and because voters were unpersuaded that the GOP even cared that much about job creation, as opposed to wealth preservation.
I really expected more from Governor Romney. I thought he might show the grace going forward that he did on election night. Apparently, he won’t. He is so out of touch, and his comments yesterday highlight this fact, that I think more and more Americans will be satisfied that he is now finally going away. The grace of election night might have actually been the shock of defeat without a concession speech prepared. Neverthelesss, as a data guy – he should have seen this coming.
I started thinking a lot about hope in 2008. This is not a political statement but my thinking was influenced, in part, by the political narratives of the time. (Of course, President Obama took the title of his book from a sermon by his pastor. Leave your preconceived notions behind and just listen, it really is good.) The timing of a national focus on hope corresponded with a period in my personal life where I was reevaluating all of my personal beliefs. I didn’t want to be a predictable and simple byproduct of my environment, culture and social context. Although nobody can ever be completely objective, I tried my best to be honest with myself and decided to find what was true for me personally.
I’ll spare you the details but my journey took me full circle. I acquired a profound gratitude for that which I already had and I came to better understand the personal faith that had taken root in my heart and soul. The tree metaphor is overused but appropriate when it comes to faith. Like a living thing, faith can die. It doesn’t come to an abrupt end – it withers first. I had induced this process but I committed to myself that I would not forget the seed, or the cause, that resulted in something growing before. In other words, I would intellectualize, explore, investigate and find evidence that contradicted my religion and my worldview but could not allow myself, in good conscience, to deny the very personal spiritual experiences that I had previously had. After all, these experiences were pieces of evidence, or data points, that deserved to be included in my personal quest for truth. It is true that these very personal experiences are non-transferrable and wouldn’t pass the peer review process, nevertheless they are mine and it would have been dishonest for me to deny or otherwise exclude them from consideration. After all, this was my journey.
It turns out that for me personally, a lot of my personal motivation to reassess my religion was derived from a desire to not be like ‘them’. This they that I had a visceral reaction against could not be identified beyond a conglomeration of characteristics that I despised and lumped into one group of fictional characters. They were often small- and closed-minded, pedestrian, anti-scientific, judgmental, absolutist, monochromatic and self-righteous. I knew that my personal experience revealed life and the world to be so much different than how I felt they were inducing me to see and experience it. I would fight tooth and nail, kicking and screaming the whole time so as to not stare at the shadows on the wall chained in the same way I thought they were. Until I had the thought: “Who is this they that I am fighting against?” Beyond a certain number of individuals who I knew to be well-meaning and good despite embodying singular characteristics that I loathed, I could not figure out why this ambiguous and unidentifiable they had so much power over me.
Looking back now, I believe I had constructed a straw man against which I could compare myself and justify my own self-righteousness. In my defense, however, emancipation is a core part of human development. As we grow older we seek to emancipate ourselves from our parents and define ourselves as individuals. We all do it in our own ways. I never had oppressive or domineering parents. The oppressive force in my life, I thought, was an institution and culture that didn’t create space for people who thought or saw the world like me. I was wrong. I still fight against what can feel like a cultural monolith full of people predisposed to group-think and confirmation bias (and what large group of people united in cause or purpose isn’t?) but have come to acknowledge and accept the reality that there are a great number of people wrestling with their faith in the same way that I have/am.
All the above does not suggest that there are not good reasons to abandon religion. There are, in my view, compelling justifications for almost every way of living. Having empathy requires this acknowledgement. Nobody wants to be wrong. Nobody hopes to be left out. Most everybody does the best they can with the experience they have.
As we all know, navigating life while embedded in a unique and very specific context within societies constructed by centuries of history using languages that have evolved over time having been framed by ever changing boundaries of fact and reality can be something of a challenge. Nobody is capable of decoupling from the reality that connects them to a certain time period, language, DNA and predisposition. We are all, each and every one of us, the byproducts of very specific and unique circumstances. Even children of the same parents grow up in marginally different contexts surrounded by a completely different set of peers and people. Sure there are common human experiences but we come at them from unique perspectives. We should celebrate these differences.We lose something when we try to cram everyone in to the same box. The one thing we have in common is our difference.
In my personal quest I confronted many of the same arguments, facts, histories, hypocrisies, counter-factuals and dichotomies that persuade others to abandon Mormonism. Without examining any issue in particular and without suggesting that I heard every story that is upsetting, suffice it to say I read enough to justify departure from religion. And I considered it – I had to. When I hear new things today, because the pursuit of understanding never stops, I pause and reflect on my membership. But all things need to be weighed in the balance and considered in context.
Ultimately, no scientific fact, argument or principle satisfied the desires of my soul for peace. No story about the behavior of a church leader past or present undermined the personal spiritual experiences I have had. No single policy or unfortunate political position has overshadowed the hope imbued by the vast majority of principles expressed by the church within me. And please do not suppose that I just need to think about these things more or that I haven’t yet enough. That somehow with the right line of Socratic questioning I might come to discover that my intimately personal spiritual experiences were fabrications of a feeble mind. To those who have abandoned the religion and expect that I will once I think about it more (implicitly suggesting that I haven’t thought about it enough since I have come to a different conclusion), I would suggest that swapping one fundamentalism for another doesn’t solve any of your problems. What, in reality, is the difference between being rigid in religiousness and rigid in atheism? How is proselytizing for converts to a faith community different from persuading people to abandon their faith community? Both approaches presuppose superiority. Both presume ultimate righteousness.
Maybe anger at feeling misled or misguided provokes a desire to fight back against that faith institution that has caused one harm. Maybe previous spiritual experiences and commitments through ritual have such a hold on conscience that the only recourse is to block them out by vigorously fighting back. Maybe the mistreatment and the abandonment of affection by those who don’t understand one’s decision to take another path require attempts at retribution. However one might feel, accusations of inferior intellect or insufficient sincerity are not justified.
Why, then, do I stay after a long personal wrestle with faith? For two reasons: 1) Hope and 2) Integrity.
Hope precedes faith. Hope is what rekindled my belief. Despite my lack of evidence, I maintain a hope that certain things are true. I hope that my soul lives on. I hope that my love and partnership with my wife will last beyond death. I hope that my family is forever. I hope that I can improve myself and my condition. I hope there is a purpose to existence. I hope there is a universal source of love and truth. I hope that there is mercy. I hope that there is peace. I hope that there is a connection between the heavens and the earth. I hope there is a God. It wasn’t until I had suspended belief in these things that my hope began to stir deep within myself. I allowed this hope a place in my heart and mind. My hope would lead to a desire to believe. My desire to believe in the things I hoped for became faith. Faith is a hope.
Can one be hopeful without having faith? Of course. You can be without religion and hope for an after life. You can even hope that God exists and have no religion or belief about God. Without religion or belief in God one can have hope in a brighter future and then cultivate a faith that leads to action to reach this desirable future state. Hope is not an end but a beginning.
This hope isn’t a crutch and neither is my faith. Neither my hope nor my faith solve any of my problems for me. I still have to live my life. No matter how well constructed the bubble of religion can appear, reality has a way of smacking people who avoid it too long in the face. Sometimes, both faith and hope can help one maintain perspective, but there are a lot of ways of doing this without religion or faith. Mentors, community members, history, science, art, music and a myriad of other things and people can help one focus on a horizon that is well in the distance. Simply, there are a lot of things that we humans rely on because, as social creatures, none of us can do it on our own.
The process of developing (or re-developing) my faith did not undermine or disable my capacity to think for myself or critically analyze information. I might go so far as to suggest that my faith had been appropriately compartmentalized. This does not mean that my personal faith does not influence my actions – but that I understand the role that faith plays in my life. Knowing the boundaries of my faith has allowed it to grow and be cultivated under the right circumstances. Hope in things unknowable is something I want to maintain, something that gives me peace, something that provides perspective and something that motivates me to constructive action. Abandoning my faith did not erase my desire to hope. Should I leave my faith, with what should it be replaced? I have found no viable alternative to or replacement for that which I already have.
The second reason I stay is fairly simple: I have made commitments that I intend to keep. There is nothing wrong with changing or evolving based on new evidence. I am not questioning anybody’s integrity who has made a different decision than I, although it might sound that way. I am speaking to the process through which my mind has gone. Simply, I know the commitments I have made and I haven’t found any good reason to abandon them. James Faust said:
Integrity is the value we set on ourselves. It is a fulfillment of the duty we owe ourselves. An honorable man or woman will personally commit to live up to certain self-imposed expectations. They need no outside check or control. They are honorable in their inner core.
Where does the soul play its part best? Is it in outward show? Or is it within, where no mortal eyes can penetrate and where we have an inner defense against the tragedies of life?
Integrity is the light that shines from a disciplined conscience. It is the strength of duty within us.
Let’s assume, dear reader, that one’s faith is weak to the point of being undetectable. Does one have any obligation to one’s self to keep the commitments made in one’s heart? Of what value is any future promise made by an individual if they cannot keep those which they have already made? What sort of integrity does one maintain if profound commitments can be cast aside as though they meant nothing? Without God as part of the equation, the abandonment of commitment speaks to the character of the individual.
I assume that many abandon these commitments because they have determined that they were made under duress or in ignorance. Their new selves are superior to their old selves and therefore they want to cast off their old selves. Such a mindset is not unreasonable to me. However, I see far more benefit than harm in maintaining my commitments. As someone who is likely genetically predisposed to alcoholism and substance abuse, I don’t think it is in my best interest to change course now in that regard. I love my partner in life and have greater hope in my commitment to her now than ever before. I have made commitments about living according to the philosophies of Christ, I don’t think my life would be better off abandoning them. I have made commitments to an institution that I have disagreements with sometimes but one that gives hope to millions and teaches people to lift and serve those around them. I have derived significantly more joy, happiness and peace through my membership in the Church than harm, disappointment or discomfort.
Is it easy? Of course not. And I am confident life wouldn’t be easier under different circumstances.
Will the Church cause me some distress going forward? Yes. But so will my family, my friends, my profession, my government and even my hobbies. I don’t plan on abandoning any of these either.
I think we all feel – at least I do – like we have no idea what we are doing most of the time. As I get older, this truth only becomes clearer: that I know nothing. I am simply doing the best with the experiences I have. My life will never be perfectly rational or have perfect internal consistency. I am flawed. I seek to improve and have hope that I can. I have, however, at moments in my life, experienced glimpses of something that seems bigger than myself, that has given me a familiar peace that is distinct and unique. I have had these experiences while meditating on specific subjects. They have come with a predictable frequency and with a suspicious timing. Is it my brain playing tricks on me? I don’t know. But I won’t deny that I have had these experiences. I believe everyone can. Such moments are sufficiently profound to justify altering some of my behaviors and making commitments to living a certain way. If you have had similar experiences but struggle in your faith, I would encourage you to not forget them. These experiences matter. Although fleeting, they are real and they call you to be your best self. Are they rational? Of course not. But neither is love and few are hasty to abandon it. Ultimately, after stepping away and then returning again, I experienced a familiar peace that seemed to whisper to my soul, “Welcome home” – and that is why I stay.
Josh Marshall over at the great TPM didn’t believe that the GOP could have really been occupying some alternative reality. Mounting evidence, however, is persuading him:
What I mean is, having watched this game for a long time, every politico knows you need good private polling. Enough of the BS, in private you need good poll numbers. And yet this didn’t happen. And as I suggested last night it actually appears the Unskewed Polling Movement began inside the Romney campaign rather than them picking it up from the premier media unskewers.
So in a sense, we shouldn’t be surprised. Let’s not also pretend that what happened in polling is pervasive across all conservative thinking everywhere. But still, it’s disturbing, genuinely disturbing.
The most disturbing thing, in my mind, is that effective management and data literacy were the basis for Romney’s candidacy. Its quite clear now that Governor Romney wasn’t objective enough to effectively make strategic decisions regarding his campaign. This willful ignorance suggests that he was out of touch with reality in his political decision making. If you can be swindled by Sean Hannity – you probably don’t deserve to be President.
Michael Cohen writes:
Romney’s campaign should be assessed in the most accurate possible manner. Its failings should not be sugarcoated or glossed over. Instead, it should be described precisely as it was: One of the most cynical, dishonest and disreputable presidential campaigns in modern American history.
From the Republican primaries to practically the final days of his failed presidential campaign, Romney was either blatantly lying about his opponent’s record, adopting policy positions of convenience that ran counter to his past positions, regularly misleading Americans about his own plans or stirring racial acrimony. I don’t feel sorry that Romney lost on Tuesday night; I feel sorry that a great nation had to be subjected to his presidential campaign. [click to continue…]
Apparently, in the state of Arizona there are still 600,000+ votes that have yet to be counted. It is safe to assume that these votes come primarily from communities of color in Maricopa county. The Senate race is within 80,000 votes and there are a number of other important races that remain close. Read more about it here.
width="650" height="390" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" style="visibility: visible;">
The basis for Romney’s candidacy were his credentials as a manager and turn-around artist. [click to continue…]
I have recently been asked by a few friends how I square my support of marriage equality with my membership in a church that is vehemently anti-marriage equality. Other supporters of marriage equality in the church have said that its best to remain quiet on the issue because “its not worth dying on the hill” for it. In other words, stay quiet and avoid excommunication until the church softens its position. However, I am a person of little consequence and doubt that my dissent on this one issue of conscience will result in my excommunication. Nevertheless, I will be somewhat measured with my words in the case I am going to make publicly. In other words, I feel more strongly about this than the following words will convey.
My faith is something intensely personal. My faith is irrational – because those things I believe in and hope for are unknowable. Faith is belief despite the absence of knowledge. In other words, faith is acceptance of unknowable ‘truth’. Truth is in quotation marks because it really can be anything. I have long been taught that you can only have real faith in true principles. The question then becomes: who determines what unknowable truths are real and fake?
Despite the clarity that many religious people profess to experience, the answer to this question is often relative. Members of my church will claim that our Prophet determines what truths are real and fake. Other church leaders do the same for their congregations. No matter how strong one’s convictions, faith cannot be anything but relative. Faith is curious. It can change, grow, be lost and be found. It cannot, however, be imposed. No matter how much you share your personal faith, it cannot be given to someone else unless they work to find it on their own.
For the sake of brevity: faith is personal and faith is relative.
One would think that this should be obvious. The evidence is everywhere. Sincere people believe in severely divergent principles and ways of living. Unfortunately, these differences are perceived in absolute terms – the other is wrong, primitive, evil, stupid, misled, misunderstands or is otherwise inferior. When it comes to religion, one cannot simply be different. Answers regarding the nature and purpose of existence, the purpose of religion, are either correct or they are not. The convergence of unknowable relativism and the rigid absolutism of religion creates something of a dilemma for many objective people of faith.
Many religions are old and come from time periods where certain behaviors are not simply unacceptable but downright wrong and evil by today’s standards. Racism, misogyny, infant genital mutilation, slavery, genocide, holy war and many other terrible things were advanced and kept alive, even well beyond their expiration date, by religion. Many people of faith would rather ignore or otherwise gloss over the atrocities committed by their religion of choice (not granting the same privilege to other institutions and instead using such acts as evidence to discredit ‘competing’ faiths). Ultimately one must ask: ‘How much of this am I required to accept?’
The honest answer is none. Despite the pressures of culture, one is not required to accept religion or faith. I would further assert that one should not accept any religion on the basis of cultural inducement. (Although I fully acknowledge that acceptance might be required for self preservation.) As a matter of personal opinion, I do not think that religion is an all or nothing proposition. One is not required to either accept every teaching and opinion of one’s religious hierarchy or reject all teachings. I, for one, have difficulty accepting that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for three days. I similarly have trouble accepting that God and Satan conspired to intervene in Job’s life. Every religion constructs or relies upon a certain degree of mythology to teach principle and instruct adherents about how to live life. And all religious people ultimately have to pick and choose the principles by which they live. Even fundamentalists, in many cases, can’t keep all the rules.
The process by which we pick and choose the principles we live by is determined by culture and other social forces, education and experience. This is an important process to acknowledge because it determines how we, religious people, experience both religion and life. Simply, by some arbitrary process that is unique to us as individuals we pick and chose how to live religion because we cannot be perfect all of the time. There is no single right way to live faithfully even within one religion.
I would call this relativism. The ‘right’ way to experience and live a religion is something one decides based on factors that are individual and not shared by everyone. Even the absolutes, in Mormonism in particular, are things that one must have a personal testimony of before action is required. Mandates on conscience and behavior are determined by what one believes. Without belief a religion has no influence over conscience – no matter how absolutely true a religion deems something to be. As a result, I would argue that it is the responsibility of the faithful to remember the possibility, and even the likelihood, that you might be wrong.
My perspective here is that faith and doubt have a symbiotic relationship. I am of the belief that one cannot have faith without acknowledgement that there is no evidence for said belief. If there was evidence then one might assert that there is a certain degree of knowledge and therefore faith is not possible. In essence, my view is, faith emerges from doubt. Doubt is healthy. Doubt encourages learning. Doubt strengthens faith. It is said that one cannot be saved in ignorance. In my view, nothing is more ignorant than willfully disengaging with empirical reality in order to occupy the walled garden of religiosity. Remember we are to be in the world – we just tend to focus on the ‘not of’ it bit.
I hope I have not lost you by now, because I am about to make my argument for marriage equality.
I don’t know everything – but I know enough to know that I don’t. I have a personal faith that percolates throughout my life and, in many ways, frames my reality and the personal decisions I make. Nevertheless, I can say with a certainty that my faith is not knowledge. I know that I do not know the things I believe. (I hope that makes sense). I cannot, therefore, in good conscience support structures, policies and ideologies that translate something unknowable into a scheme that restricts and restrains people from exercising the same right to pursue happiness according to the dictates of their conscience.
I cannot take what is not tangible in my mind and heart and impose it on someone else’s tangible reality. Because I have learned to embrace my personal doubts, I strongly believe that my faith ends where other people’s reality begins. My faith is constructive and builds people up and calls them to be their best selves. Why, then, would I sully my faith by using it as a means to restrict someone else’s pursuit of their best self? Surely I do not know what is best for others when I have not and cannot walk a mile in their shoes. It is best, therefore, to err on the side of equality and justice. For if I am wrong in my faith, and that is a real possibility, I would long regret having used an incorrect belief to prevent another from accessing the fulness of their happiness while alive.
I think my feelings about civil equality for gays and lesbians stems from difficulty accepting the previous positions of some church leaders on similar issues. For example, slavery was legal in the Utah Territory. At the time, Utah was a theocratic territory in everything but name when the decision was made. And then there are quotes like this about the civil rights movement from General Conference addresses:
“First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder. Not one in a thousand Americans-black or white-really understands the full implications of today’s civil rights agitation. The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own.”
Clearly, we know enough to now understand that Martin Luther King was not the pawn of a Communist movement. I could post all sorts of quotes, letters and general conference talks that would now seem to us absurdly racist and offensive but I am not going to do that here. The history of the church on these issues is pretty clear as it was not that long ago.
Simply, we are led by men with opinions. They are prone to express them from time to time. Sometimes their opinions, like ours, are wrongheaded and sometimes they are not. The certainty of the language from the Church and church leaders regarding race, civil rights, and interracial marriage gives me pause whenever political positions are taken by the church and church officials about civil rights issues. I, personally, defer to evidence and the well being of those most affected by a policy change, in this case couples who love each other and want to enter a civil contract with one another, rather than the opinions of men I respect. After all, we are all entitled to our own personal testimony regarding doctrine and, frankly, I do not have one on this issue.
There is enough ugliness in the world. That two people should love each other and want to share their life and love together is something positive and the prevention of such should not be a means by which we generate political animus towards a partisan cause or general disenfranchisement. Fundamental to the pursuit of happiness, I believe, is the ability to share your life with the people you love. Allowing gay couples to make the civil contract of marriage with each other does nothing more than expand this fundamental right to pursue happiness to the relatively small minority of people who strongly desire to formalize their commitment to each other.
**Update** Turns out I was dead wrong.
Please note that I said ‘could’ and not will or should or must. Nevertheless, there are number of important factors converging in the state this election that haven’t been thoroughly considered because all of our statewide offices are held by Republicans.
But there have been major shifts in the last four years:
In 2008 Latinos were 9 percent of the voting electorate. The pressure to turn those numbers into political power is only increasing, as the Latino share of the electorate reached 18 percent of all eligible voters in the state in 2010.
Yes, you read that right. John McCain – in his home state – beat President Obama by 8 points. Senator McCain was significantly to the left of Governor Romney on immigration and had better national polling numbers with hispanics than the Governor. In the most recent poll, President Obama has a whopping 37 point (65% – 18%) lead over the former Governor with Arizona latino voters. Senator McCain enjoyed significantly higher latino support in Arizona. The Arizona exit polls showed President Obama bested the Senator by a paltry, by comparison, 15 points (56% – 41%). This should spell trouble for the Governor.
But support for the President will not be the only motivating factor this election for Arizona Hispanic voters. We have a real chance at electing a Democratic Senator who happens to be of Puerto Rican descent. Arizona will soon be a majority minority state with Hispanics being the largest minority group. 42% of the state is non-white and Latinos are 30% of the state’s population. Arizona Republicans face an uphill climb trying to distance themselves from a national party that is hostile to one of the largest voting groups in the state and a state-wide reputation for intolerance and out-right hostility. Unfortunately, many in the national GOP don’t realize that many Arizona Hispanics have been here for generations longer than their fellow Arizonans of European descent. Simply, many didn’t cross the border – the border crossed them.
Then there is the biggest, albeit the most difficult to poll, reason to expect a relatively high Latino turnout in Maricopa County (Arizona’s most populous county): Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sheriff Joe was a guest of the GOP at the Republican National Convention and was invited to speak by the Arizona Republican Party at a special event in Tampa. The Arizona GOP said of the Sheriff: “Sheriff Joe is a good friend and a great Republican, a former member of the Electoral College representing Arizona, and he’s wildly popular not just in Maricopa County but throughout the state and the country. He’s done a lot for the Republican Party already and we’re overjoyed that as always he is willing to join us as we visit some of our ‘fellow elephants’ while in Tampa.” But below is a video that represents how ‘popular’ the Sheriff is among Latinos (Caution – Strong Language NSFW):
For those who don’t want to listen to the curse words, here is the money quote:
“And while we’re at it, Sheriff Joe in Arizona – f–k you, you f–king puto. How about that? F–k you. You fat mother f–ker. F–k you. I said I was going to talk some s–t. F–k you, Sheriff Joe, you f–king puto. F–k you. F–k you.”
It is difficult to misinterpret that sentiment – and it is not popular. The crowd roars as George Lopez begins his rant.
That’s right, the not-so-loved sheriff is up for his sixth and hopefully last term as sheriff. His reign has been one plagued by scandal and abuse of both power and other human beings. Rather than cite personal anecdotes it is better to simply state that anybody who even pays a little attention to local politics knows that there is not much love for the sheriff. And few believe that his department is not ripe with corruption and consistent misapplication of the law. Among the Hispanic population specifically, there is tremendous animosity. For example, a popular local radio station regularly plays the song embedded below:
Most important verse:
Magic City Arizona where the sun is king
Everyday we still fighting for that championship ring
Even through the recession
we all want success
DJ’s in nightclubs and hot girls undress
For the money, the fame, to break into the game
Two shots of patron and she’ll give you anything
Even though sheriff Joe is satan in the flesh
My people still make it past the walls and the fence
Im living proof of this American dream
selling ring tones and always raising up AZ
From the lies, to sexy lady pretty brown eyes
Feels good to hear em say AZilla overtime
When i land in the bay, or the 915
When i’m on stage at the gibson in my cocaine white
Nick dolls, BIg D, NastyBoy is in the building
And we bout to make a killin’
Now, I don’t much fancy the song but it shows that among certain parts of the voting public, the negative characterizations of the oppressive sheriff are taken for granted.
The implications of his candidacy are significant. Although I have no evidence, I would be surprised if Latino turnout did not exceed even the most aggressive projections. The desire to end the sheriffs reign of terror in Hispanic communities is very strong. And it is hard to disagree with this desire. He has been the instrument of State abuse and oppression in the Arizona Latino community and has consistently made it his mission to gloat about it on national media. He has made himself a national figure among the far right and seems to revel in his reputation as oppressor of Hispanics and disrespector of the President (remember his fruitless post-birth certificate ‘investigation’?). The animosity towards Sheriff Joe is deserved and profound and I suspect it will be a powerful motivator for Arizona Hispanic voters.
So, in short, Arizona could be a blue state in November because: 1) Sheriff Joe is loathed and on the ballot, 2) Hispanic voters represent twice as much of the voting population as they did in 2008, 3) there is a Latino candidate for Senate in Richard Carmona (and both Democrats and Hispanics are very enthusiastic about his candidacy), 4) the Arizona state GOP has been overtly hostile to Hispanics for the last four years, 5) President Obama enjoys a broader base of support among Hispanic voters nationally and an even wider margin among Arizona Hispanic voters and 6) did I mention Sheriff Joe was on the ballot. Conventional wisdom suggests that the top of the ticket has a more significant impact on the down ballot races. However, in 2012 I think one of the furthest down ballot elections will trickle up and greatly benefit both the President and the prospective Senator.