Skip to main content

New Alliances

And new divisions David Warren makes the same point I was trying to make a few days ago:

The swing vote here is Catholic, almost one-quarter of the U.S. population and traditionally strongly Democrat. In the last several months, polls have shown the Catholic vote swinging dramatically from Kerry to Bush, who now leads it in the proportion 3:2. Most sudden changes are tenuous: the Democrats might still prevail by winning that back. But don't ask me how. Surprisingly, the much smaller, traditionally Democrat, Jewish vote has not yet fled from Kerry to Bush, though the Muslim vote is shifting modestly from Bush to Kerry. But no anomalies here: regular synagogue or mosque attendance is, in both cases, an indicator for Bush; secularity an indicator for Kerry. The reader would be right to read into this grand seismic events. The U.S. public is splitting along religious lines, not between one confession and another, but more vastly between the religious faithful, and the rest. Messrs. Bush and Kerry have, largely without intending, become surrogates in a battle between alternative Americas, and for each side, in the coming election, almost everything is at stake.

One of the more interesting things about having been around for a little while is developing a sense of when change might be in the air. You have to go through it once or twice and then you get something like s Spidey-sense: aha! something might be going on here. Knowing what it is is another matter. When you're young the tendency is always to assume, about the culture: thus it ever was, and thus it always shall be. Maybe we should call it the Mount Saint Helens factor. A smoking mountain in Washington State equals a stark election choice and a shift to the right.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi