Last weekend, 18 days after Barack Obama decisively defeated their candidate for president, a mostly Republican crowd of self-described conservatives received their first introduction to someone many prominent members of the GOP think could be the party's own version of Obama.You don't say. Obama was the next Kennedy. Then he became the next McGovern. Or was that the next Stevenson? Now he's the next FDR. And Jindal is the next him--because he's, you know, swarthy. The thing about Obama that people, apparently, still don't get is that thus far he has proved himself a damn good politician. He is not simply the eloquent black dude who won--although he's that too. He's the dude who reinvented campaign fundraising, who pioneered the use of social networking, who won Virginia and North Carolina, who ended 50 plus 1.
Obama's also the dude who's turned universal healthcare, massive public works projects, and an office of urban policy into the machinations of a centrist or a center-right Democrat. But most importantly Obama opposes dogma. He is a progressive pragmatist trying to tackle issues by creating the broadest coalition possible. Jindal meanwhile..
...social conservatives like what they have heard about the public and private Jindal: his steadfast opposition to abortion without exceptions; his disapproval of embryonic stem cell research; his and his wife Supriya's decision in 1997 to enter into a Louisiana covenant marriage that prohibits no-fault divorce in the state; and his decision in June to sign into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, a bill heartily supported by creationists that permits public school teachers to educate students about both the theory of "scientific design" and criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary concepts.So let's see we have, covenant marriages, outlawing abortions--no exceptions--creationism, and banning stem-cell research from the public sector. Sounds pragmatic to me and exactly the sort of issues to build a broad coalition around. Why not resurrect Terri Schiavo while we're at it. This dude isn't Barack Obama. He's George W. Bush--he's a more competent George Bush.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
"He's George W. Bush--he's a more competent George Bush."
And swarthier! Swarthy up, mother%&@#$!
This is the problem with not having an ear into the black community...or any minority community for that matter. It is as if your getting ready to see MLK, but out comes Uncle Ruckus...this will be fun! The party of lincoln?? yeah right, more like the party of Atwater...
You're being a little too literal about it, TNC. First of all, it's perfectly natural for the opposition to be thinking about "their own Obama" at this juncture. You contrast Jindal and Obama by calling Obama a damn good pol without establishing any reason that Jindal would not merit that description, and lastly, so you're trying to tell me that the next big hope for the Republicans, adheres to a lot of Republican positions? You were expecting the next Republican nominee for president to come from MoveOn.org?
These cultural ties that Jindal exhibit are very strong and will grant him a significant base of support, the same base that Palin energized. That would not seem to be enough in the current Obama political world BUT circumstances change and who knows what events will transpire and how they will be dealt with by an Obama admin.
Jindal's relative competence should not be underestimated, imagine if Bush had been more competent but still as wingnutty... things could be very different. I think this will be the mould for a future governing GOP, Christianist and effective. I truly hope it never transpires and the way to prevent it is effective governance for the next four years. But that is what I think the GOP will be reduced to, a religious party of cultural conservatism. /shudder
I don't know enough about Obama's voting/policy record to say whether, in 2004, we could have painted him into a similar corner.
Jindal's also an exorcist.
No, he's not George W. Bush; but yes, Jindal is a conservative Republican, and that will obviously make him unattractive to progressives such as yourself, TNC... and me, for that matter.
The point is that Jindal is, so far, an intruiging mix: the fact that he's a person of color, that he's well educated and smart andcapable... will make it harder to paint him into a simplistic box. The "covenant marriage" deal will, most likely, make clear how seriously he takes marriage and family commitments; how does that hurt him? He's been far more involved in the healthcare issues we face than most Republicans... that makes him at least 5 times more on point on today's issues than either Bush or McCain (and he's just proposed a fairly sweeping Medicaid reform in Louisiana - one of the worst Medicaid cases in the nation - that focuses on Managed Care and incentives for Best Practices, two things the left will find creative, and positive).
I have my issues with Jindal, and I think he's beatable, at least right now. But liberals will mess themselves up convincing tghemselves that he poses no threat or is an unlikely player come 2012. He's good, he's getting better, and he could, seriously, get there. Pay attention. And don't oversimplify.
"He's George W. Bush--he's a more competent George Bush."
Jindal's other problem (other than the swarthiness) as a Republican is that, unlike George Bush, Jr., his father wasn't President of the U.S.
The GOP has reached it's nadir or power. It really depends on them as to whether the next century is a battle between the center-right Democrats and the center-left Green party, or the centrist Democrats and the center-right GOP.
By overestimating the reach of their message of ignorance and religiosity, they are sealing the tomb in which they will be eternally forgotten.
And Jindal is dead in the water - his fingerprints are all over too many culturally toxic issues, primarily the stem cell issue, which will be 4 years funded by 2012 and 2 years creating miraculous results, and the evolution/creationism debate, which 90% of the country finds grotesque. Abortion is so played out that honestly: who gives a shit? By the time 2012 rolls along, we'll have stacked the court with young, robust, brilliant progressives with 40+ years left on their tenure.
Jindal's biggest problem with the GOP will be his "swarthiness". The Republicans have spent 44 years catering to the racial prejudices of white Southerners. They aren't going to mess that up by nominating a non-European.
From John's blog comment to God's web browser.
I would add that if Obama manages to repeal DADT early in his first term, Gay Marriage and what have you is off the table as well, and the Bobby Jindals are further marginalized, which they should be.
jdc - Jindal has already proved - three times - that he can get the votes of white southerners; Louisiana's north country is pretty much as white and prejudiced as they come, and Jindal's won there. He can expand that, and make that a non issue (and the one time he lost because of it was when Kathleen Blanco made a blatant racial appeal against him... something the Democrats cannot do nationally). Jindal is just what the GOP needs to feel that they can "move beyond race" - he will make otherwise prejudiced whites convince themselves that they, too, can see beyond race by electing him. In that sense, he really is the right's Obama - someone white people can vote for to feel better about themselves.
If Obama struggles his first term, the GOP isn't going to go with someone who reminds people of Obama. They'll go with an old white guy- "we tried change and it just didn't work; let's go back to what we know." If Obama's first term is a success, I can't see Jindal being stupid enough to be the GOP's sacrificial lamb.
But, a lot can happen in four years. I remember lots of people speaking with conviction that Rudy, or Bill Frist, or Condi Rice, or Jeb Bush were sure to be the GOPs 2008 nominee. And of course, they were going to be running against Hillary...
The exorcism thing will end this Jindal fascination, now or in 2012. If the GOP base couldn't handle a Mormon, an even more purified version of the base certainly isn't going to go for that!
Yes, he's said to be smart. But he seems to be for an awful lot of dumb things.
"He's George W. Bush--he's a more competent George Bush."
I think this is a contradiction in terms. The defining characteristic of W. isn't any of his ideological beliefs. It's his utter incompetance. Increasing his competance loses what is fundamental about W.
And let's not forget the exorcism. In Jindal's own words: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/06/11/jindals_exorcism/
Doug,
Good point.
Jindal's a more competent Bush ...
Who's his Cheney?
At first I thought, "Palin."
But Jindal wouldn't need a Cheney if he's competent.
What he would need is a beard.
A symbolic stamp of white, evangelical protestant, fear-arousing, not-too-intellectual approval.
Palin.
Jindal is definitely sharper than George and his conservative cred will likely overshadow the fact he's brown but there's still larger issues to look at.
The problem with conservatives right now, is that they still think it's the 1970's or even the 1990's for that matter. It was easy to target the 'gays' abortion, scientific research, etc. with the Boomer generation.
Now though, you have my generation coming up (this was my second Presidential election and my girlfriend's first) and most of us are liberal in terms of social issues.
The 'value' voter base has already dropped... what do you think it's going to look like in 2012 or 2016 for that matter?
I think at this point, it's realistic to say, barring total failure of the Obama Administration, that social conservatism playing a big role in national politics is almost dead.
This is becoming comical. After Hillary's run, McCain's team scoured the GOP for a woman and coughed up Palin. Now after Obama's win, they're scouring the party for a non-white guy...you know, the next Obama. But what they really need to be looking for is a moderate. I don't see how they build their base (esp. with younger generations) by continuing to promote candidates who cater to the religious right.
Ever since Bush showed them this is how they could win, they all seem to following that formula. But I don't see that as a winning formula in the future. Doesn't matter what face they put on it....a woman, a non-white guy...it's still the same old socially warped GOP.
If Obama struggles his first term, the GOP isn't going to go with someone who reminds people of Obama. They'll go with an old white guy-
I doubt that, the old white guy didn't work out so well in 1992, 1996 or 2008 for the GOP. It is very difficult to predict the political future, I remember the death of the Republican party in 1992 and by the end of 1994, Clinton was guaranteed to be a one-termer.
It isn't out of the question that non fundamentalists would vote for someone who holds Jindal's ideals. This election has shown that if shit is really screwed up, you will have "Rednecks for Obama".
I don't know if Jindal is a good politican or not, but often the guy who wins has been extremely underestimated. The left never knew how to take on Reagan, in part because a lot of them assumed he was an idiot. Carter was dismissed as a peanut farmer, Clinton was too young, untruthful and undisiplined, and Biden and Hillary both said Obama was to inexperienced to be President.
I don't think his social positions are going to be a disadvantage to him. His strengths seem to be a willingness to tackle economic and other domestic policy issues, like health care, from a pragmatic and non-ideological point of view.
America is still a socially conservative country; Obama won precisely because things like the economy and Iraq overpowered social conservatism as an issue. If Obama's social liberalism, particularly on abortion - which is at least as radical as Jindal's conservatism - didn't stop him from being elected, it's hard to see how Jindal's conservatism, which is closer to much of the countries' views than Obama's positions, will be a significant detriment.
In 2012, the election won't be mainly about social conservatism, except with the GOP base. If Obama does a good job on foreign policy and the economy, he'll win; if the economy stays bad or his health care plan fails or something, that's what the election will be about.
And how does anyone here know the exocism wasn't real? I've never seen anything like it, but I've heard someone speak in tongues - which I never really believed before that - so I wouldn't consider it impossible.
Actually, the thing that will sink him in the primary isn't his skin color, it's his religion. He's of a breed of Catholic that believes that salvation only comes from within the church. The GOP is a largely Protestant party and he'll have to defend against a group predisposed against Catholics as a pretty extreme Catholic.
I guess it speaks to the supreme self-confidence and self-regard of Republicans that when they lose elections, they believe that the main reason is because they haven't been conservative enough. And the solution is to find candidates that are more conservative.
Whereas when Democrats lose elections, they'll spend time and energy questioning every principle they stand for. "What do you think? Are we too pro-choice? Is that why we lost? Maybe it was the too pro-gay thing? Too pro poor people? Too pro elitist? Too Democrats?"
weboy: Louisiana isn't the rest of the South, its always been more multi-cultural and mutli-racial, even northern Louisiana. White Southerners in the rest of the South joined the GOP to get away from swarthy people. And his Catholicism just makes him worse.
"If Obama's social liberalism, particularly on abortion - which is at least as radical as Jindal's conservatism"
No, this isn't remotely true. The by far majority opinion is for some legal abortions with restrictions in the last trimester (partial-birth etc). Obama is well within mainstream views here. An abortion initiative in line with Jindal's views got voted down this year in South Dakota, one of the most conservative places around.
"And how does anyone here know the exocism wasn't real? I've never seen anything like it, but I've heard someone speak in tongues - which I never really believed before that - so I wouldn't consider it impossible."
Sorry, but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously with a paragraph like that. If you really believe that, you'd probably be better off keeping it to yourself.
Right now Bobby Jindal is exactly as credentialed to be president as Sarah Palin, which is to say not at all. The only reason he gets brought up into the presidential mix is because he is "swarthy" and thus he has taken over the token negro role that Colin Powell used to inhabit for about the last 16 years. Every time race baiting came up this campaign season, how many white Republicans would lament "its not about race because I would have voted for Colin Powell back in 1996" Of course they had the advantage of Powell deciding not to run back then. Now that Colin is on "RINO" status they will be using Jindal in the same fashion. But they don't really want him to run, they just want to use him as a poster boy for a few years. They are touting Jindal as being a leader on health care reform when the guy hasn't even come up with a health care reform plan. All he has said is that he wants to look at health care reform and now just like Sarah Palin was the most expertest person in the whole wide world on Energy, he is now being packaged as the most expertest person on Health Care in the world. Trust me, it won't last long. Its the same way they love promoting Michael Steele who has done NOTHING in his elected career of any note other than try to trick black voters in MD into thinking he was a Democrat when he ran for Senate. But now supposedly Steele is up for RNC chair. Thats an EPIC FAIL just waiting to happen. Trust me, a year or two from now there will also be a hispanic "rising star" in the Republican party but none of them will get any attention when the rubber meets the road in 2012. Do we really have to go back through all of the racist propaganda that came out of the Republican party rank and file this election year? It ain't because Obama was a Democrat thats for damn sure!
I think the contrast between the faith-based governance style of the 43rd president and the rational, fact-based governance of the 44th will all but guarantee the failure of any candidate whose bonafides begin and end with "Genesis" and "Revelations".
"If Obama's social liberalism, particularly on abortion - which is at least as radical as Jindal's conservatism - didn't stop him from being elected, it's hard to see how Jindal's conservatism, which is closer to much of the countries' views than Obama's positions, will be a significant detriment."
I might buy the argument that on the whole, America still tilts slightly to the right on social issues. But I don't believe for a second that Jindal's social views are closer to much of the country's views compared to Obama's.
Much of the country believe that abortion should be illegal in any circumstances? Even rape, incest and when the mother's health is threatened? Much of the country want to ban stem cell research? Much of the country don't believe in evolution? Really? I must be living in a different country, then.
Katherine
Are we really a socially conservative country when numerous states voted to decriminalize marijuana and at least one state voted to legalize assisted suicide? I mean I won't even count the Democrats who squashed the Republicans all over the country, but I just really want to know how someone says America is socially conservative with a straight face when we just had a President elected who was described as a socialist, baby killing, terrorist sympathizer by his adversaries. Kinda defies logic don't ya think?
By the way, of course there is no proof that the exorcism wasn't real but there also is no proof that Dennis Kucinich hasn't seen UFOs. Are you thinking about voting for him as president also?
If Jindal can make it through being Governor of Louisiana :
1. The state still standing and doing ok
2. Without any scandals.
3. Without being indicted
then, the GOP should offer him anything he wants...LOL
I am interested in an explanation about the exorcism though.
sgwhite, there is evidence on the side of social conservatives as well, look at California's gay marriage ban.
Also with abortion, the country isn't so solidly pro-choice as this gallup poll shows. A majority believe abortion should be illegal in the first trimester if the woman simply doesn't want the child. That is not a pro-choice position. Clearly the Jindal/Palin approach is well ouside the mainstream view of abortion, but abortion on demand is not all that popular, even in the first trimester.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx#2
By the way I wonder if its gonna hurt Jindal that he grew up Hindu and then converted to christianity later in life. Please believe that if they used the falsehood on Obama that he used to be a muslim, his opponents will DEFINITELY use the fact that he used to be a Hindu against Jindal in the primary. Oh and there is that little thing about his parents moving to the U.S. just before he was born. I can just see the birth certificate issue revisited again. It will be nice to see the rethugs going after their own ruthlessly for once. Especially when he doesn't realize that the people in his own party hate him. I am going to try to link this rant I found online from a black man about Michael Steele and some other black folks who ran as republicans two years ago. Bobby Jindal should read it before he considers running.
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/11/you-have-shamed-us.html
Adam -
No, this isn't remotely true. The by far majority opinion is for some legal abortions with restrictions in the last trimester (partial-birth etc). Obama is well within mainstream views here.
That's a contradiction. Obama supports FOCA, which would remove ALL restrictions on abortion. Totally unrestriction abortion is supported only by about a quarter of Americans, which is not "mainstream". A majority of Americans actually support banning abortion outright after the first trimester.
Granted, there are more people who think abortion should be wholly unrestricted than who think it should be illegal in all cases (16% vs. 11%, based on the linked Gallup poll). But both positions are far out of the mainstream.
Stem cell research is supported by a majority of people, but I don't think it's a big enough election issue that BY ITSELF it would stop people from voting for him.
sgwhiteinfla -
Washington and Oregon are socially liberal places, and I'm not hugely surprised at them approving doctors providing lethal prescriptions for terminally ill patients. It's interesting that pot is becoming more accepted, but that's not related to Jindal's political positions stated above. Close to half of Americans think people were created in their present form, with no evolution, and more are offended by schools teaching evolution than by them teaching people were created in their present form by God, so I REALLY don't see this issue hurting Jindal (though as a scientist I'm rather dismayed).
And I'd have supported Kucinich if I thought he had a chance at winning. I'm left-wing on virtually every issue but abortion. I'm assessing what the majority views are in America, not presenting my own view.
@ sgwhiteinfla
Some of the more right wing-nutty components of the party might bring up those things during the primary, but if he wins the primary, they'll all fall in line. Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line, remember? They didn't like McCain during the primary either.
If Jindal is nominated, we can all look forward to Republicans claiming that they've been the party of tolerance and diversity all along. It's the Democrats who are intolerant! Look how well they conducted the 360 turnaround when Sarah Palin became the VP pick. Suddenly the GOP is the defender of women rights. Democrats are sexist for saying anything remotely negative about Palin!
Sorry, 180 turnaround. 360 gets you at the same place. My brain is not functioning well today.
DougEMI
The gay marriage bans passed with close margins. The marijuana bills as well as the assisted suicide bills passed with pretty good margins. By the way even though gay marriage was banned in 3 states I believe its still legal in two other states. As for Abortion on Demand I don't know of a Democrat who supports abortion on demand. Everything Obama has talked about has been with respect to restrictions and trying to lower the number of abortions. Now if you want to talk about conservative vs liberal a better measure is how many people support sex education classes. And thats a decidely majority FOR sex education and not just abstinence classes.
Katherine
The Freedom of Choice Act does not remove all restrictions on abortion. All it does is assert the same rights granted under Roe V Wade with the caveat that in the last trimester exceptions can be made from the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in cases where the mother's life or health is at risk. Remember John McCain with his finger quotes for "health of the mother"? Its a reaction to the Partial Birth Abortion ban, nothing more and nothing less.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1173&tab=summary
How do you end one of these special Louisiana marriages that disallow "no fault" divorce? Sounds wacko to me. Does the State of Louisiana extend the "Honor killing" defense to spouses who've had enough but can't go the "no fault" route to end their marriage?
It's amazing how conservatives have twisted and screwed up and pretzelized marriage.
I prefer Freddie DeBoer's take on monogamy, as a more meaningful alternative to state or religion sanctioned marriage.
@sgwhiteinfla, BINGO! I pretty much agree with all your comments here.
I think there are two things that will keep Jinadal from ever reaching the white house.
1. Sure Dems can't be racist against Jindal in a GE (nor would they be anyways) but that won't stop GOP primary opponents from pulling the southern strategy on him.
2. Maybe individually his conservative positions don't hurt him but taken together he is way to the right of America today, let alone in another 4 years. Obama is a center-left guy. I can't speak on the Jindal's policy (he hasn't really been in office long enough) but his stated social positions right-wing christian worthy.
2a. He also will be only 41 at the time. Sure he'll have been a governor for almost 4 years but still. Obama will 51 & have been president for almost 4 years. Obama would use the experience argument like a bludgeon. He wouldn't stray from his message either by doing something to undercut that argument.
In the end I don't Jindal will even run in 2012 (he isn't a fool). It will be 2016 for him.
From the FOCA bill:
"Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively."
I think one of the issues that some people have with this is this item could mean that Catholic hospital, which gets government funding through Medicare and Medicaid, could theoretically be forced to perform abortion. And I think the Church has stated that they'd rather close the hospitals than do so.
Although, the term used here is "federal, state or local governmental entity", so I'm not sure if that also includes institutions that receives government funding. I haven't really read any legalistic argument from the people making this argument, so it's also possible that some people are making the broadest possible interpretation as a scare tactic against FOCA. Any lawyers here who might know better?
Katherine,
That evolution poll you linked is one of the saddest things I've seen in a while. I did see one heartening thing from it though: 15% would be more likely to vote for a candidate who doesn't believe in evolution, and 29% less likely.
Also, your second link conflicts with the first, as the first poll has questions on what should be taught in schools: evolution 61%, creationism 54%, intelligent design 43%. It appears the second poll being taken in the wake of a large public controversy influenced the results somewhat (as does the wording, since fundamentalists are more likely to be offended by alternative views imo).
And of course, even if FOCA applies to institutions receiving government funding, they could always include a provision to exempt Catholic hospitals, so it's not really as bad as some people have claimed it is.
I think I've been reading too much Melinda Hennenberger and Will Saletan on abortion issues. "No, if Obama support FOCA, it will be as bad as when Roe v Wade passes. Democrats will lose the next 100000 elections".
How do you end one of these special Louisiana marriages that disallow "no fault" divorce?
The state of NY doesn't allow "no fault" divorce, period. All it means is that you can't end a marriage without cause. If your spouse cheats or abuses you, you can leave the marriage.
@Sarah, I'm pretty sure gov't entity means orgs run by the gov't & not institutions that just receive money.
sgwhite, the fact that it was in California is what is more relevant than the margin. If it can't pass in Ca., it won't pass in most of the country at this time. While two states may allow it, the other 48 do not.
For abortion, I have no doubt Obama wants to reduce the number performed, but I don't know what restrictions he has proposed. The Gallup poll I linked states there are a percentage of Democrats who favor no restrictions on abortion.
I am pretty sure you are right on the sex ed issue, but there are other social issues that many in this country favor a more conservative approach: guns, affirmative action, death penalty, drug war(though this sadly seems to be bi-partisan). As someone who is conservative on a lot issues, I wish the country was more liberal on many social issues.
what irks me is that there are legitimate scientific objections to specific parts of evolutionary theory, or rather unexplained holes in it, and there ought to be and is legitimate scientific debate about these topics - but these 'creationist' people have nothing to do with any reasonable objections. they are simply reading the English Bible literally, like empirically.
I know this blog's readership may not be the best place to put this question forth, since i imagine most share my view of creationists as arrogant people who are simply reveling in their own ignorance, but I have a serious one for you Christians: why is it not more widely considered a serious form of blasphemy to read the Bible this way, that is, literally? Isn't it really blasphemous to read the "six days" creation story as having taken place over six rotations of the earth around its axis, when that act of Divine creation must surely have included the creation of the earth and sun themselves, not to mention space and time and consciousness and everything else? How can you 'know' that you are right in restricting God to physical actions your limited human mind can completely comprehend - doesn't the mystery of evolution give God more credit, if anything? A system which designs itself - a system in which free will and God's will coexist! I believe in God and that is just one tiny aspect of His creation that blows my mind. He gave us minds so we can use them, people.
I guess I am preaching to the choir here but... well any Christians' comments here honestly would help me out. I don't get why it isn't more of a point of contention among churches, is it just a culture war thing, or are these literalist types such a fringe that most church-goers don't even take them seriously, despite their volume?
PeterGuilliam
Thats my whole point, he will NEVER make it out of the primary. Not. A. Chance. Did you know that some dude in the RNC already sent a letter to Michael Steeele telling him he shouldn't run for the head of the RNC because he isnt a member? Funny I never heard anybody make that argument before, have youo?
Doug-
As far as abortion and same-sex marriage go, they might still be hot subjects for awhile but my generation will resolve them. My generation being those under-30 years of age. Gay marriage will eventually be legal across the U.S., that's very clear. Abortion may still be legal in the future but it will be far more restricted than it is today.
The others issues you mentioned aren't even issues now. The death penalty and gun rights have already largely been decided on a state level, it's a classic case of Federalism at work.
One thing Bobby has in common with Obama is that he has had to struggle with two cultures. His parents (Indian ) culture and the culture of the state they immigrated to. He has chosen to totally repudiate his parents culture by using not only choosing to change religion but also to adopt a western name. Given the discussions earlier that Obama was AA not only because he claimed to be AA but also because with his looks he has to be considered to be black will Jindal suffer from being considered a fake next to Obama's authenticity on this matter.
@Sv
as an "aspiring" scientist...i can say that, unlike religion which is a static process (the Word...is in fact the WORD)...is that science, has a way of self-correcting, through empirical research, and analysis....i'm not an atheist by far, but science is a far better tool than religion to understanding this world...now, if people want to belive in other models...fine, go ahead...i'm just waiting to see the first paper produced by an creationist or someone who subscribes to intelligent design that
adresses a modern biological issue based on the tennents of that particular model...and i mean strictly based on that, not some half-assed borderline proxy-argument. Until then, i'm going to be critical of these models...
As far as Jindal:
I have no doubt from what I've read about him that he is a smart man. He hasn't been governor for long, but he may well bring to Louisiana government the qualities that are being sung about: honesty, pragmatism, cost-cutting, efficiency, anti-corruption, transparency, etc.
But many of those singing this song are the same ones who unquestioningly bought into the same phony spiel about Palin's 'pork-busting, competent, nonpartisan' Maverick cred, when really they were going for deep cultural identification, which in America by the way goes deeper than purely racial identification. Eminem is totally and unquestionably hip hop, and Jindal is, even more so, totally and unequivocally a socially conservative Catholic and modern "right"-wing Republican, what Sullivan calls a Christianist. I think white voters for whom these political/religious positions are appealing see him and think, he's so assimilated that one can have no doubt about him!
btw, he is not unique among foreign brown converts in his success, work ethic, or zealotry for the party line. I do not at all begrudge him his positions, nor am I at all calling him a sellout - there's a strong and cohesive community of Indian Catholics who hold specifically these beliefs, and in fact I'm really proud of him as the first (of many!) Indian-American governor and someone who was elected as such because of (among other things) a reputation for honesty and competence. (reconcile THAT with your positions, Tom Tancredo Republicans!)
All I'm saying is that he does indeed fit a cultural mold, and given the New Deal-esque tone of the upcoming government, many Repubs, even the ones who weren't repulsed by the racist appeals of parts of the McCain-Palin campaign, may hold their noses, take a leap of faith in the brown man, and go for someone with the cultural social-con "red-team" cred he holds. After all, among the people who are still Republicans, the social cons outnumber or include the blow-up-the-Arabs hawks and definitely outnumber the kick-out-mexicans types. That having said, a moderate would give him a run for his money in a primary in 2012, and if he won i just dont see the majority of America voting for someone with those views, especially on stem cells and a nationwide no-exception abortion ban; they are just too restrictive.
Rajesh,
Did he change his name? I thought it was not uncommon for Indians (not just those living in Guyana, Trinidad etc) to have the nickname Bobby or Bobbi. Besides, as a Christian, why not have a Christian name like Robert? Perhaps he has completely repudiated his parents' culture, and I don't know what his relationship with them is like. If he has really retained some Indian culture, and I expect he has, that could be a tough issue. However, in converting he joins a large and established community of Indian Christians, no?
I don't think his social positions are going to be a disadvantage to him. His strengths seem to be a willingness to tackle economic and other domestic policy issues, like health care, from a pragmatic and non-ideological point of view.
I remember during the campaign for Governor, there was an NPR profile of Jindal that didn't touch on the social stuff much-- but it did have a lot of discussions about how Jindal was talking about getting the government running, and running well, and touching on pocketbook issues. In that respect, I think-- and the big 'if' is if Jindal succeeds in the Republican party-- Jindal could be Obama-esque, in 'rising above' the identity politics of who's more Christian, etc, and focusing more on the issues of primary concern to the country.
Nuada, I agree with your assessment on gay marriage and abortion. The other two items I brought up were simply to show that certain conservative ideas are pretty deeply entrenched in this country.
While I think the death penalty sucks, majorities seem to disagree with me. I think Dukakis and Bernie Shaw killed the anti-death penalty movement for some time. I am also pretty uncomfortable with guns, too bad my fellow Spartan, Plaxico, didn't share my discomfort.
Bruce,
Yes - I think that the creationists persist, out of ignorance, in a belief in the false dichotomy between science and religion. I don't know that their areas of exploration intersect in this particular case, although it seems that way at first glance. That's why I wouldn't hold my breath for a creationist paper that makes empirically provable results or even claims - not because it doesn't make sense from a rational perspective, although it may not, but because its purveyors are not being intellectually honest. They're not scientists at all; in fact, they are culture-war footsoldiers and hence increasingly irrelevant.
As far as religion in general, I think that although the word may be the Word, interpretation of what it actually means, putting it into context, and exploration of one's own spirituality are not and probably aren't supposed to be closed matters, and that's where many fundamentalists go wrong. You can believe and still not know everything - in fact, how can you know everything? Just my opinion.
sv-
I'm a Christian but I'm a Catholic Christian so I don't think I can help you out all that much. Catholics are actually taught to read the Bible but are not taught to read the Bible literally. I've known very orthodox, even somewhat conservative priests to openly mock the idea.
One thing you need to consider though; Evangelical Protestantism is a vague term that covers a lot of ground. It's not proper to look upon them as a bunch of ignorant hicks who hate everyone. Yes, they are less educated by Catholic seminary standards and yes, some are very hateful. But it's really more complex than that. (I mean, Pat Robertson went to Yale Divinity School. Joel Olsteen can't even say the word "hell", never mind saying someone is going there.)
There are liberal Evangelical Protestants and conservative Evangelical Protestant. (Jerry Falwell vs. Jimmy Carter) Even among conservative Evangelical Protestants, there are differences. Many come from the Fundamentalist tradition and thusly aren't very educated, but some don't and are relatively smart, though still have very similar stances on the various issues.
I've personally talked to very conservative Evangelical Protestants who believe in sola scriptura but still put huge weight on what their pastor thinks. They also talk as if the King James Bible was written by the hand of God but don't actually take every single passage literally.
Basically, my point is the Bible doesn't say anything. It's a book, it can't talk. Bible-believing Christians say things, based on their interpretation of it.
sv, he supposedly took the name bobby as young boy from the brady bunch. he also converted @ 16.
@Sv
Nicely put...i do think that exploration of ones spirituality is important, i base that on scientific evidence that we have a need to put objects and relations in context. But because of that, one cannot exclude the importance of curiosity, which is a fundamental base of science. and curiosity is of course partly based on the fact that we dont know...we dont, therefore we explore, we find out, we try new ideas, we reject those that are not good, and we continue to develope...evolve if u will! Anyway, i do think we are on the same page here. Bill Clinton said it best, "Religion is like knife, If you use it to cut bread, it is good. If you use it to cut off your neighbor’s arm, it is bad."
Of course, same with science..
Unless Obama's first term is a huge disaster, I don't think Jindal would be stupid enough to run in 2012. He'll wait till 2016. He was smart enough to not want to be vetted as McCain's VP because he doesn't want to be associated with a losing campaign. Why offer yourself as the sacrificial candidate unless you're running against a highly unpopular president?
"Nuada, I agree with your assessment on gay marriage and abortion. The other two items I brought up were simply to show that certain conservative ideas are pretty deeply entrenched in this country."
Well, it depends on the state, that's why I brought up federalism. States that have strict gun control laws or vice versa, or states that have the death penalty or vice versa aren't going to change because of a burgeoning national consensus. Unlike abortion or gay marriage, the issues have largely disappeared from the nation's consciousness. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because of the significant drop in violent crime over the last 15 years or so.
In the modern era of American politics, the liberals have won a lot more lasting ideological victories than the conservatives had. Aside from the reform of welfare, I can’t think of a conservative issue that is now CW across the country. The gradual but steady shift on abortion is happening largely in spite of pro-life conservatives not because of them. FDR’s social welfare state, prayer out of schools, progressive taxation…these things aren’t even being seriously challenged by serious conservatives any longer.
Jindal arguably does have more experience on a national level than Palin. He was a Congressman for three years so would've gained a bit more knowledge on national issues from that.
The social conservative voters, like me, can't really be ignored by the Republican base. I know for most other people under 35 you think that whole thing is history, but it's not really. That might be the future, but in the present most voters are still of older generations. Republicans can't afford to lose the young as badly as McCain did, but they can lose the young and do fine.
"Aside from the reform of welfare, I can’t think of a conservative issue that is now CW across the country." Nuada
TR: The death penalty. Americans support it now more than they did in the 1950s. Also unions. Americans are much less pro-union than in times past.
I might add guns, but I'm not sure there was much change there.
I'll weigh in on the parallel thread here on biblical literalists. Speaking as an evolutionist who was taught creationism through college, I can try and give some perspective.
The big problem with evolution is not just that many people want to believe the first few chapters of Genesis really happened as documented. The problem is that evolution states that the world was a mess before we got here. So if God created the world, then God must have created it using a process of suffering and death as well as beauty (evolution is elegant and beautiful IMO as well as violent). Traditional Christianity says that we humans brought evil into the world by using the free choice God gave us and choosing evil. Therefore, we needed a savior because we messed up and thus Jesus came to die to save us. Evolution says no to pretty much all of that.
Evolution really does seem to me to challenge the basic narrative of Christianity. If this all-powerful and all-loving God created the world using a process that is both good and evil, then how can we say that this same God hates evil so much that He will someday destroy it? That He hates sin and suffering and death? Creatures were suffering and dying for hundreds of millions of years before we came along and God intentionally made it that way not us - not that we haven't put our own unique stamp of nastiness on it but still. So really, if anyone owes anyone anything, I think evolution suggests God has some explaining to do to us and not the other way around.
I'm not sure many Christians really think too far along these lines but they do often have a knee-jerk aversion to evolution and I think the above is why. They cannot believe that evolution is true because it really does challenge much more than the first few chapters of Genesis.
“The death penalty. Americans support it now more than they did in the 1950s.”
Color me doubtful. I would like to see the stats that put support for the death penalty in 2008 higher than say, 1958. After all, it’s now legal in fewer states than it was years ago.
But you almost totally missed my point. As of today, some states have the death penalty, some do not. But there is no movement to legalize it in states that don’t already have it. The best you can say here is the Left & the Right battled to a draw.
“Also unions. Americans are much less pro-union than in times past.”
Well, if it’s true, it’s only because most workers today aren’t in a union. But, just to be a chartable guy, I’ll give you that. So, welfare reform and unions. I’ve said before that America is more economically conservative than it is socially conservative.
“I might add guns, but I'm not sure there was much change there. “
Again, I think you have yourself another ideological draw.
The GOP base is all about social issues. Why do you think they loved Palin more than McCain despite that McCain was more competent and experienced? Anybody running for the top of the GOP ticket has to breathe that culture war fire to get the nod. America has evolved over the past few years on gay rights and just seeing gay people as people in a rather rapid way since Will & Grace came on the air and Ellen came out in the late 1990s. All things being equal, Americans will continue to evolve culturally as a whole, but the GOP base won't.
"If Obama struggles his first term, the GOP isn't going to go with someone who reminds people of Obama. They'll go with an old white guy- "we tried change and it just didn't work; let's go back to what we know." If Obama's first term is a success, I can't see Jindal being stupid enough to be the GOP's sacrificial lamb."
Bingo. The GOP base is made up of people that has called me, an Indian-American, a terrorist sympathizer for not hating Arabs, Afghans and Persian and not laughing about jokes revolving around committing genocide against Arabs. These people agree with Alan Keyes on everything and don't nominate him. They think a black man who attended a Christian church is the anti-Christ. What do you think they're going to think of a brown intellectual who lived abroad and converted to the dreaded Catholicism? The GOP has never had a Catholic nominee. Hell, they just nominated a Scot-Irish guy, practically the opposite of Irish Catholic. Do you really think they're going to go for an Indian Catholic named Priyush Jindal in 2012? Jindal is still very young (in his 30s, I believe) and can run in 2016 or 2020 as still a relatively young candidate. In eight or twelve years, the GOP base may have been re-configured enough to make a Jindal primary coalition easier to assemble than in 2012.
According to Gallup 47% favored the death penalty for murderers in 1957 and 53% did in 1960. There was a period around 1953 where it was 68% which is higher than the current support level of 64%. Although in 1999 it rose to 77%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/23548/Support-Death-Penalty-Years-After-Supreme-Court-Ruling.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111931/Americans-Hold-Firm-Support-Death-Penalty.aspx
I don't know of other polls that asked about this in the 1950s. The General Social Survey indicates it went up from 1975 to 1985 then basically stabilized until 1994. After that it declined to about the level it had in 1974. Still support is either the same as 33 years, going by that, or is slightly higher.
http://sda.berkeley.edu/quicktables/quicksetoptions.do;jsessionid=BEE5F32CDEF07BA151D4028D9845A1DD?reportKey=gss06%3A5
I actually live in Louisiana and have seen Jindal's career up-close for years. I think some of you simply don't get the Jindal stuff because all you see are reports from the national press pool and gushing conservative bloggers.
First, about north Louisiana (and Jindal's victory there proving his ability to appeal across racial lines): Jindal only won north Louisiana this time because he wasn't Kathleen Blanco. After Katrina, conservative Louisianans had horrible buyer's remorse about Gov. Blanco - the most common criticism of Blanco I've heard from conservatives is that she showed weakness during Katrina by crying.
Any Republican could have won those voters last year, provided they did their best to appear "generic" - which Bobby did. Bobby won big in our primary because Bobby was the only major candidate with major funding - his opponents were a regional and perennial Louisiana liberal who never makes a splash and a turncoat Republican named Walter Boasso. The Democrats didn't bother nominating any of their big guns because the electorate was hostile to the idea of another Democrat sitting in the governor's mansion after Blanco.
So Bobby won big because he was the only big name in the race - and he ran a campaign so milquetoast that no one was offended or turned off by it.
In fact, Bobby has lost the only contested race Bobby he's been in - against Blanco, and because he came across like a smart right-wing wacko. Race probably did have something to do with it in north Louisiana - but less the "I hate coloreds" attitude than the "foreigners just aren't like us" kind of way. As unpleasant as it is to think about, that's a reality in rural Louisiana.
I know this is getting kind of long, so I'll end it with this: I've seen very little from Bobby that suggests he could beat any of the GOP heavyhitters - Romney, Huckabee and even Palin could eat him alive. Huckabee and Palin have a more natural claim on Jindal's core constituency - evangelical Christians - than Jindal ever will, both have more charisma than Jindal. Romney, by contrast, has "credibility" on domestic policy - the kind of credibility that'll play well with the conservative smart set.
Bobby's only chance is to run as a reformer and hope he can nail down the narrative before Huckabee, Romney or Palin steal it from him. Maybe he can do it - but I think clips of Sean Hannity chastising Jindal on Fox News and demanding him to act like a Republican (during the Louisiana legislator pay increase mini-scandal) will sink his primary bid unless the GOP is too scared to try anything else.
Just my $.02 - your mileage may vary. But if you think Jindal is an extremist now, try living in his state.
-neal
Thank you for the info from Louisiana, Neal. It's true, all I know about Jindal, since I'm up in NY, is the third-person type chatter.
I think this map shows a big hurdle for Jindal:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/the_mccain_belt.php
The GOP is starting to look like a rump party, and that rump is firmly located in the white South. As Neal points out above, there were special circumstances in Louisiana that contributed to his gubernatorial victory, so it may not be accurate to say he's proven he can win the votes of the white Southern GOP base.
It would be interesting to see what white Appalachia would do in a contest between Jindal and Obama, though. Stay home?
As a divorce lawyer for twenty years I honor those that are committed to their marriage and I respect that the Jindals entered in to a covenant marriage.
Unfortunately, many couples enter in to these arrangements failing to properly anticipate the changes that may take place in their lives. Then they are stuck and they add needless legal obstacles to get out of their marriage.
I'm sure the Governor understood precisely what he was a doing. Lots of other folks don't.
Lee Rosen