The proletariat votes Republican

Statistical slicing and dicing of the election results shows what I had been saying:  Blue-collar workers, who used to be Democrat’s base, are now overwhelmingly voting Republican.  Higher income folks are voting for the Democrats.  These class dynamics, of course, fly in the face of leftist political theory.

Democrats remained strong in areas with the party’s core of minorities and higher-educated whites. But movement of white working-class voters away from the party is a concern for Democrats, especially because of President Obama’s traditional weakness with those voters.

Republicans’ success with the blue-collar vote and the high enthusiasm of the tea party gives it a fired-up base headed into 2012. But in a presidential election with higher turnout, the party might have trouble winning a majority with those voters alone. It certainly can’t rely on that bloc to carry the party into the future.

Democrats largely held on to their high share of the vote in the country’s densest places. The party captured 54 percent in counties with populations of more than 500,000 people, compared with only 49 percent in 1994. In smaller counties, Democrats’ share of the vote slid to 39 percent this year from 43 percent in 1994.

Much of the reason for the Democrats’ decline in less-dense areas can be attributed to the party’s trouble attracting white, working-class voters. Exit polls showed that Democrats lost white voters without a college degree – one way to measure blue-collar voters – by almost 30 percentage points in House races.

via Political divide between coasts and Midwest deepening, midterm election analysis shows.

The article, which is putting the best construction on everything for the Democrats, says that the Republican dominance among low income white people will not last long, since that demographic is shrinking.  I don’t know.  With the current economy, that number may just skyrocket.

And it doesn’t look like the Democrats will try to win back their base as long as they give off the classist vibe, the sense that all of those uneducated voters, those ignorant white trash rednecks, just don’t belong among their betters.

Generation X is disillusioned

Generation X is disillusioned, we are told, traumatized over there being a war, the failure of our efforts to stamp out drugs, our educational woes, and the possibility that America is not as exceptional as they had been taught.

I had thought Generation X was supposed to already be cynical.  Why did you have illusions in the first place?  But nevermind that.

Welcome to adulthood, my friends.  Join the disillusionment of us Baby Boomers.  Generation Y will join us in a few years.

The Leadership Playlist: The disillusionment of Generation X – On Leadership at washingtonpost.com.

How Christianity conquered pagan culture

Michael Craven recounts how Christianity won a culture war:

The Roman world was brutal and generally indifferent to suffering. Sympathy and mercy were weaknesses, virtues anathema to those of Rome. The ancient world was both decadent and cruel. The practice of infanticide, for example, was widespread and legal throughout the Greek and Roman world during the early days of Christianity. In fact, abortion, infanticide, and child sacrifice were extremely common throughout the ancient world.

Cicero (106-43 BC), writing in the period before Christ, cited the Twelve Tables of Roman Law when he wrote, “deformed infants should be killed” (De Ligibus 3.8). Similarly, Seneca (4 BC-AD 39) wrote, “We drown children who are at birth weakly and abnormal” (De Ira 1.15). The ancient writer Plutarch (c. AD 46-120), discussing the casual acceptance of child sacrifice, mentions the Carthaginians, who, he says, “offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds while the mother stood by without tear or moan” (Moralia 2.171D). Polybius (ca. 200-118 BC) blamed infanticide for the population decline in Greece (Histories 6).

Historical research reveals that infanticide was common throughout India, China, Japan, and the Brazilian jungles as well as among the Eskimos. Dr. James Dennis, writing in the 1890s, showed how infanticide was common in many parts of Africa and was “well known among the Indians of North and South America” (Social Evils of the Non-Christian World, 1898). Suffice it to say, for much of the world and throughout most of its history the culture of death and brutality has been the rule, and a culture of life, love, and mercy has been the exception. It is to the cause of this exception that we now turn. . . .
These early Christ-followers did not organize special interest groups or political parties. They never directly opposed Caesar; they didn’t picket or protest or attempt to overthrow the ruling powers. They didn’t publicly denounce or condemn the pagan world. Instead, they challenged the ruling powers by simply being a faithful, alternative presence—obedient to God. Their most distinguishing characteristic was not their ideology or their politics but their love for others. They lived as those who were, once again, living under the rule and reign of God, a sign and foretaste of what it will be fully, when Christ returns.

They expressed their opposition to infanticide by rescuing the abandoned children of Rome and raising them as their own—an enormously self-sacrificial act at a time when resources were limited and survival was in doubt.

Following the end of the Punic Wars in 146 BC, the breakdown of marriage and the family had begun in earnest. By the time of Christ, Rome was a pornographic culture. Marriage was a “loose and voluntary compact” (Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [reprint, London: Penguin Books, 1994] 2:813). Sexual licentiousness, adultery, marital dissolution, and pornography were widespread. It was into this depraved cultural context that Christians would introduce a radically new and different view of life, sexuality, marriage, and parenting. In contrast to the Roman concept of Patria Potestas, according to which fathers had the right to kill their wives and children, Christians taught husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Eros gave way to agape.

The early Christians, acting in obedience to Christ, began to care for the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. So alien were their charitable acts and self-sacrificial lives that the Romans referred to them as “the third race.” In the centuries to follow, even though Christians were still a demographic minority, their care of the poor and sick, would serve as the first steps in achieving cultural authority. By being seen as those who reached out to and cared for the weak and suffering, the early church would establish its “right to stand for the community as a whole” (John Howard Yoder, For the Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public [Eugene, OR: Wifp and Stock, 1997] p. 8). Sociologist James Davidson Hunter points out, “because Christian charity was beneficial to all, including pagans, imperial authority [political authority] would be weakened” (To Change the World, 2009, p. 55).

Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome, clearly understood the power of these Christians when he wrote the following:

“These impious Galileans (Christians) not only feed their own, but ours also; welcoming them with their agape, they attract them, as children are attracted with cakes… Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. Such practice is common among them, and causes contempt for our gods (Epistle to Pagan High Priests).”

Emperor Julian clearly saw the writing on the wall. The Roman Empire would not succumb to political upheaval or force but to love, the love of Christ. Julian’s dying words in AD 363 were “vicisti Galilaee” (You Galileans [Christians] have conquered!).

Once imperial power was discredited by the superior life and ethic of the Christian community, the church would build upon its newfound cultural credibility and eventually ascend to the heights of cultural power and influence. And, Western civilization would become the most successful civilization in history.via The Christian Conquest of Pagan Rome, Michael Craven.

I believe the Gospel had something to do with Christianity’s triumph over Western Paganism, not just how supremely moral the Christians were.  Still. . . .What would be the equivalent actions today to get through to our own increasingly barbaric culture?

The homeless commute

In our nation’s capital, the homeless shelters are on the outskirts of town, but all of the good panhandling spots are downtown.  So the District of Columbia runs 10 buses, at the cost of $1.8 million, so that homeless people can commute.

Each morning, the District government operates a kind of free mini-Metro for the homeless, connecting the city’s increasingly outlying network of shelters with soup kitchens, social service bureaus and preferred panhandling blocks closer to downtown.

Then, each evening, the homeless commuters join the outbound flow. With the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library on G Street NW serving as a depot, 10 scheduled buses load up to take the homeless back to shelters on the outskirts of town. The city spends about $1.8 million a year on transportation for the homeless, including the daily buses and a hypothermia van that patrols the streets on wintry nights.

“This just fits into an overall notion that being homeless doesn’t eliminate your need to get to and from places to conduct your life,” said Clarence H. Carter, director of the D.C. Department of Human Services, which funds the bus system through a subcontractor. “Everybody’s got to commute.”

via For homeless, too, a daily commute in rush-hour traffic.

If this rubs you the wrong way, are you being insensitive to the plight of the poor? Or is it this program that is insensitive to the plight of the poor by, in effect, subsidizing and thus perpetuating homelessness?

You are not allowed to say what you think

Juan Williams, the African-American journalist who is often the token liberal on Fox News, was fired by National Public Radio for saying that passengers in Muslim garb on airplanes make him nervous.  This was in the context of arguing with Bill O’Reilly that he should be careful about stereotyping all Muslims as extremists.  See Williams’ self-defense: FoxNews.com – JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth.

Other public figures have been getting pilloried for saying that they do not approve of homosexuality or masturbation or evolution or whatever.  These are things that lots of people think, but it’s not socially acceptable to say so.  Is freedom of speech just something for the government to not infringe, or should it be a value that the culture as a whole upholds, if it is to actually be a free society?  That is to say, if people lose their jobs for stating their opinion, do we really have free speech?

The legacy of Bonnie & Clyde

Arthur Penn died, the director of Bonnie & Clyde (1967).  Who besides me remembers when that came out?  It was a good movie, but it set some things in motion that resonate in Hollywood to this day.  For one thing, since it flagrantly flouted the Production Code (Hollywood’s self-policing limits on sex, violence, bad language, and immoral themes), that code was replaced the very next year with today’s permissive rating system.

Ed Driscoll resurrects an interview that leftwing journalist Rick Perlstein did for Reason magazine in 2008.  Perstein hails Bonnie & Clyde as a key “text” of the New Left.

Reason: You like to mix cultural history with political history. Bonnie and Clyde is one of the central texts in the book.

Perlstein: My theory is that Bonnie and Clyde was the most important text of the New Left, much more important than anything written by Paul Goodman or C. Wright Mills or Regis Debray. It made an argument about vitality and virtue vs. staidness and morality that was completely new, that resonated with young people in a way that made no sense to old people. Just the idea that the outlaws were the good guys and the bourgeois householders were the bad guys—you cannot underestimate [sic] how strange and fresh that was.

via Ed Driscoll » Easy Riders, Raging Boomers.

Notice that, to this advocate of the movement, the agenda of the New Left was not economic (like the old left) or even political (like the New Deal liberals).  Rather, it is precisely moral and cultural.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X