Today, the disparity is even worse. We have a Vice President from Delaware, which certainly would not have happened if big states were allowed to fully exercise their populous muscle. Delaware simply wouldn't matter. California today contains 68 times as many people as Wyoming. In fact, California is home to more folks than 21 other states combined.
Still, I think studying the Senate explains American politics. Largely because voters look at Senate candidates in a more sober, studied way than those for any other office. After all, they are making a six year commitment--longer than they devote to a college choice, a car loan, or most romantic relationships. Those six years give a sense of familiarity that is seldom associated with any Congressman. While Presidential races are characterized by a numbing overload of pomp and circumstance, from declaration all the way through inauguration day, those who would be Senator are seen through a lens more sharply focused on reality.
And it is because of this, I believe, that those Tea Partiers who saw themselves as Senators--Miller in Alaska, Angle in Nevada, Raese in West Virginia, Buck in Colorado, and O'Donnell in Delaware--went home without trophies this time around. In the end, they were not judged Senate-worthy.
In fact, statistically the Senate seems precisely aligned with the sentiments of America. This fall, among those voters who were willing to declare a party affiliation (leaving the independents aside), 52% said 'Democrat' compared to 48% for 'Republican'. It appears the new Senate will include 52 Senators caucusing with Democrats...compared to 48 with the Republicans. A perfect match.
But beneath the surface, there are two central currents running through the Senate that help explain America's political divide better than 24 straight hours of any political punditry.
True, in general Republicans are richer and Democrats less so; Democrats more progressive and Republicans more conservative. The GOP is whiter, while the Dems get more female votes. But working against the stereotypes are jarring exceptions: there are two very moderate female GOP Senators representing the state of Maine, each assailed by members of their own party as 'liberals' for their positions on social issues; on the Democratic side of the aisle, that party can take nothing for granted from Blue Dog members who would logically support the progressive policies designed to provide better times for their relatively poorer constituencies.
What explains this?
Isolation...and religion.
There are 13 states in America where population density is more than 200 people per square mile. They don't seem to have much in common: Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio and Hawaii are not close together. California houses four of the nation's 12 biggest cities. The densest state--New Jersey--doesn't even include one in the top 60.
But people in those states have one thing in common--contact with a lot of other people. They cross paths. They interact. They find out about each other. They have no choice. They have to share--roads and school rooms and open spaces. They are the answer to Rodney King's plea--yes, they all can just get along.
However, does this constant contact make them anxious and angry...or more forgiving? Do they end up wanting to help their fellow men...or punish them? Maybe a good test would be to study who they elect as Senators. Do they want 'help your fellow man' Democrats? Or 'every man for himself' conservatives?
Here's the breakdown for those 26 elected officials: 21 are Democrats...and only five Republicans. When people have to get along, they do. Isolation breeds desolation. Familiarity would seem to breed consideration for your fellow man. Perhaps close contact promote appreciation for the fundamental liberties our first patriots envisioned.
The other definitive fissure in American politics is religion. On one side of the chasm you have good, God-fearing Christians. On the other, there's your collection of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, witches, cultists, devil-worshipers, and those who spend their Sunday mornings on golf courses that may or may not have been created by intelligent design.
How does the Senate scorecard play out here? Of the ten states where church attendance is lowest, fourteen senators are Democrats, and only six Republicans. Not worshipping there is not fatal to a political career.
But in the ten states where people most often attend Sunday services, a whopping 17 Senators carry the GOP banner, compared to three lowly Democrats. Here, it is definitely advisable to be seen consulting the Good Book.
Over the next two years, the legislative engine of Congress will most certainly seize. It's hard to see either side giving an inch (if the Democrats have learned even a modicum of reality). And into that void, the media will jump, yabbering about what they really want to talk about anyway--Sarah Palin.
As a resident of the state with the most open space...and already clearly comfortable with the concept of Messiah...Ms. Palin seems perfectly suited to play to her base.
But it's not yet clear that her act will play as well where Americans really have to interact and assess strangers every day...where more faith is placed in human beings than supreme beings.
Yes, she is blissfully isolated and vocally devout.
But could America ever see her as a Senator...much less a President?
2 comments:
As a person of faith, I chafe at being grouped with the extremist faction of Christian faith, much like many of my friends of the Muslim faith. Our world history is full of examples of heinous things done in God's name, including the persecution and execution of many prophets of the divinity of man, proponents of peace, and champions of the poor. Jesus Christ, for one.
Pailin doesn't even pretend to attend church or to care for any cause, unless paid in advance. And Alaska is most assuredly not a state where the majority attends church regularly.
The problem lies, in my opinion, with the continuing decline of our educational system. Thomas Jefferson advocated for post graduate education of all at federal expense, because he believed that uneducated masses was the greatest danger to freedom. Critical thinking is what is lacking in political discourse today. I predict that the states with the greatest amount of Democratic and Independent voters are the states with the best educated populations.
It is certainly impossible to stereotype 'Christians'. Catholics and Presbyterians and Baptists and Evangelicals are perfectly capable of identifying those aspects of their personal faith that separate themselves from other Christians. So no 'grouping' was intended.
My point was only a statistical one; the more likely to attend church regularly on Sunday, the more likely one is to vote Republican.
But you do raise two good points. If Sarah Palin is, to some degree, not a 'sincere' Christian, what is the litmus test for revealing that? And at what point (e.g., "our metric indicates that Palin scores only 47% on the Christian scale, while Hucakabee is an 86%") do Christian voters find her lacking...and make her pay the political price? Is it just enough to call yourself religious...or is there a need to prove it? And what proves it?
I applaud your forthrightness in raising the issue of critical thinking. Do Democratic voters apply it more frequently than Republicans? Too large an issue to address here. But it does beg the question of why middle class voters concerned about losing their jobs, paying their mortgages and easing the size of the deficit would ever support a party devoted to capping unemployment benefits, opposing logical moves to reduce foreclosures, and digging in their heels to oppose ending the tax cuts now afforded the wealthiest 2% of Americans...which will only further balloon the deficit.
That paradox is best explained in the best political book of the last couple decades, What's the Matter With Kansas.
Post a Comment