The FRC's take on the Democrats first 100 hours in power in the House:
Despite making values issues a priority in their campaigns, liberals jettisoned their pro-family sentiments in their first weeks on the job. Instead, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and company introduced measures to fund anti-life research, silence voters through lobbying reform, increase taxes, and police thoughts through a new "hate crimes" law.
The FRC's pro-family agenda includes:
And I'm out of touch with everybody, apparently, because my pro-family agenda would start out with early childhood education and providing health insurance to all children.
FRC ain't "the Right" any more than, say, Chomsky is the Left.
By 7:49 PM, at
If you can tell me any Democratic governors Chomsky has attended bill-signings with, I'll agree with you.
Perkins has shared a stage with Gov. Perry and tried for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Louisiana.
The FRC is a very influential organization and Tony Perkins is a very influential man. I also don't think Chomsky has a $10 million budget or has meetings with equivalents of Karl Rove.
tried for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Louisiana.
Oooh. And got a whopping 10% in the primary, losing badly to the eventual general election loser.
As to influence, Chomsky will be remembered in 100 years. Perkins will be forgotten in 20 (let's hope, anyway).
By 10:33 AM, at
No leading Dems are out courting Chmosky. Rove & Co. made a concerted, public effort to court the FRC.
Neither the right nor the left is monolithic, but the right is far more homogeneous in the U.S. White evangelicals -- as represented by groups like the FRC -- are a key ingredient to the FRC's base. Chomsky-ites have no such influence over Democrats.
While there is no cognate for the FRC on the left in terms of power and influence, better comparisons would be the AFL-CIO, MoveOn, or perhaps the ACLU.
Neither the right nor the left is monolithic
My point exactly, and my complaint about your headline.
the right is far more homogeneous in the U.S.
Hmmm. I'd be interested in hearing any evidence to support that.
By 11:15 AM, at
70% of white, evangelical Christians voted for Republicans in 2006. 27% of Republican voters in 2006 were white Protestants. 20% were evangelicals. 17% of Republican voters in 2006 were white evangelicals.
Not monolithic, by any means, but more homogeneous than Democratic voters, who are often gay (75% of gay voters voted for the Democratic candidate in 2006), Jewish (87%), non-white (75% men, 78% women), or are union members (68%).
This is classic apples-to-oranges. You mostly refer to the percentage of Republican voters who fit various descriptions, then contrast that with the percentage of various groups that voted Democrat.
You did include one Republican number that compares directly with all of the Democrat numbers, viz. 70% of white, evangelical Christians voted for Republicans. The problem with that is except for the union membership number, those Democratic percentages were all higher than 70%. Certainly that doesn't necessarily mean Democratic voters as a whole are more monolithic, but I'd say it might mean the groups that you picked are generally more monolithic voters than are white, evangelical Christians.
You still may be right (though I'd be surprised if the right is really "far" more homogeneous), but you really haven't provided any evidence yet.
By 12:23 PM, at
I can do the multiplication, if you like, but the exit poll data does not provide breakdowns for the Dem-leaning subgroups. So, for example, we know that 6.75% of Democratic voters in 2006 were non-white men, 8.6% were non-white women, 9.5% were union members, 1.7% were Jewish, and 2.3% were gay. What we don't know is what percentage of Democrats are non-white, Jewish, gay, union members.
The members of the two major parties aren't all that different -- primarily white, primarily straight, primarily Christian. This reflects the basic demographics of our country.
The difference I'm inartfully attempting to express is between a segmented group of core Democratic voters -- those mentioned before, plus poor people and atheists and a much less segmented group of core Republican voters -- who tend to be white, Protestant evangelicals.
OK, then -- what's a "core Republican voter" and what's a "core Democratic voter?" I suspect that neither has any exact or even any useful definition. It sounds to me as if you've defined them in a way that begs the question.
By 6:17 PM, at
If evangelical Christians all decided to sit out the next couple elections the Republicans would be turned out of office en mass. If every Chomsky devote sat out the next several elections no one would notice. Except maybe the Greens and the Socialist Worker's Party who would wonder why their number were so much lower than usual.
All the bogymen (sp?) of the left are squarely in the Republican camp (with the odd Buchannonite straying from the fold) whereas most of the bogymen of the right are not part of the Democratic party and often don't see "a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties.
Both of you (Hammer and Jambo) are as myopic as any wingnut that thinks all Democrats are the same.
I know that the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data," but:
William F. Buckley Jr.: pro drug legalization. Critical of the war.
Glenn Reynolds: pro Iraq war, but also pro gay rights and pro choice.
Ann Coulter: ... well, never mind...
You already mentioned anti-war Buchanan.
Alan Simpson: pro-choice.
Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter: voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (which you may recall was the first bill vetoed by Dubya).
John Sununu: filibustered Patriot Act renewal. Voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
By 9:54 AM, at
I've completely lost track of your point. Neither Jambo nor I has said all Republicans are the same. However, roughly speaking, 20% of Republican voters from 2006 are on board with the FRC's positions. That doesn't make the FRC the only voice on the right, but it makes the FRC one of the most prominent voices from the right. To the contrary, I doubt 20% of Democrats can even tell you who Noam Chomsky is.
Neither Jambo nor I has said all Republicans are the same.
No, not "all Republicans are the same." But the FRC expresses "the Right's Perspective" and "All the bogymen of the left are squarely in the Republican camp."
Look, I'm not here to defend Buchanan or Buckley or the FRC (though that a la carte cable programming thing sounds good). Nor do I claim that Pelosi is in Chomsky's pocket. I'm just saying that this blog is a serial stereotyper of the right, and that adds nothing to the debate. Don't you want to be better than Powerline?
The FRC is wrong almost all of the time. Why poison the message with that headline?
By 12:31 PM, at
I appreciate the feedback, though I certainly don't agree with it. I stand by the headline and the content of the post. Let me turn to who I hope is an authority on this. Tony Perkins:
Looking for the 'Right' Reaction to the State of the Union Address?
Family Research Council
President Tony Perkins and FRC's policy analysts will be available for
comment before and after President Bush's State of the Union Address this
This is from an FRC press release today.