BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Jumping the shark for Jesus (continued)

32 comments on Jumping the shark for Jesus (continued)

Jumping the shark for Jesus (continued)

: Glenn Reynolds gets it right today in his analysis of Bush’s falling polls:

Mickey Kaus refers to “the semi-mysterious slump of President Bush in the polls.”

I don’t think it’s much of a mystery, and I agree with Bush pollster Matthew Dowd that it has something to do with Terri Schiavo. (“The country’s generally unhappy, and maybe they think the Terri Schiavo case is taking away from things that Congress or Washington ought to be working on.”) Only it’s broader than that.

The Democrats’ weakness is that people worry that they’re the party of Jane Fonda. They tried — but failed miserably — to convince people otherwise in the last election.

The Republicans’ weakness is that people worry that they’re the party of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They tried, successfully, to convince people otherwise in the last election, but they’re now acting in ways that are giving those fears new life. Add to this the fact that the war is going well, weakening the national security glue that holds Bush’s coalition together, and a drop is natural: People who reluctantly backed Bush because Kerry was just unacceptable on national security are now seeing their worries about domestic issues as more credible.

I think it’s more than that religion is a distraction from the nation’s business. I think Americans get scared when they confront people who are too religious — especially when they do that on the other side of the church/state wall. This doesn’t mean the Democrats should be godless; they should just be religously moderate (read: sane). In the primaries, we will find odd and new coalitions among conservative Catholics and born-agains pushing the Repubicans further to the religious right. But in the general election, a religious mainstreamer can win over a fringer.

: Earlier Jumping-the-Shark-for-Jesus posts here, here, here, here, here, and here.

: What should Bush do? I’ll say it again: Concentrate on energy and health care. Oh, but of course, those are not easy issues for Republicans with big biz interests at stake. So the same advice goes for the Democrats: Concentrate on energy and health care.

32 responses to “Jumping the shark for Jesus (continued)”

  1. tb Avatar
    tb

    Bush’s preoccupation with Social Security and the slumping economy are probably just as responsible for the slide. The Schaivo stunt gave it a good kick downhill though.

  2. Patricia Avatar
    Patricia

    I think religion is part of it, but for those of us in the Southwest, it’s illegal immigration, the lawlessnews, and the pandering to cheap labor advocates and the victim industry at the same time.
    That’s why Arnold’s numbers are down, too. The deficit is the same as when he started. Why is that?

  3. Ed Avatar
    Ed

    Jeff, what’s “sane?”
    If someone is raised Catholic, and believes what they are taught, they believe abortion is wrong. If they vote that way, and try to convince other people to vote that way, is that “insane?” Certainly, in the Democratic party, that’s considered extremist view with no wiggle room for dissent.
    What’s a “fringer?” Someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible? As they say in writing school, show, don’t tell.
    Showing: “They demonstrated religious extremism when they banned interracial dating at Bob Jones University.”
    Telling: “The religious freaks in the conservative movement are going wingnut over the filibustering.”
    Of course, you can write whichever way you want. But people who might be inclined to agree with you could be seriously put off by your, at times, sweeping generalizations.
    (FWIW: Bush himself has said he favors stricter parentual supervision of T.V. and radio to a heavy-handed FCC, and that our society has to respect that atheists can be perfectly patriotic. And he’s the leader of the Republican party and conservative movement.)

  4. Charging RINO Avatar
    Charging RINO

    Why can’t the Republicans be religiously moderate (read: sane) too? Why does our party continue to take its cues from the “Justice Sunday” crowd?
    There is a mainstream America, and right now the GOP isn’t swimming anywhere near it.
    – Charging RINO
    http://www.chargingrino.com

  5. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    I think the GOP will be lucky if Bush’s slide is mostly about Schiavo, as I think the impact of that fades over time. It’s a much bigger problem if the slide is mostly due to the perception of a softening economy and the reality of high gasoline prices, as those are much more out of the control of Bush or the GOP. BTW, Matt Dowd can say what he likes to the media, but I note that Bush is out today proposing to build more refineries. Not sayin’, just sayin’.

  6. KirkH Avatar
    KirkH

    “What should Bush do? I’ll say it again: Concentrate on energy and health care. Oh, but of course, those are not easy issues for Republicans with big biz interests at stake.”

    That may be the most egregious oversimplification I’ve ever read. Democrats also have a problem with energy and healthcare. Their fear of nuclear power has lead to the use of coal instead, now they want to push through the Kyoto treaty?
    Sure, Democrats can promise free healthcare for baby boomers until they’re 95 and the AARP will throw a party and they’ll probably get elected. The baby boom has power in numbers. Those of us in our 20s who know we’ll never see the benefits we’re paying into are just going to resent the older generation. An older generation that has a lot to teach us.
    I think people are starting to look at what’s happening in the socia-list bastions of France and Germany; great retirement benefits, 35 hour work weeks, amazing unemployment benefits, high minimum wages, protectionism, and most importantly nearly 15% unemployment.
    If older voters aren’t careful they’re going to create an entire generation of angry libertarians.
    By the way, I had to add a – to socia-list because C i a l i s is a male supplement blocked by the comment system. Damn censorship :)

  7. Sigivald Avatar
    Sigivald

    tb: “Slumping economy”? Care to give more details?
    BLS and the ESRB doesn’t seem to think the economy is “slumping” according to the data I looked at. (At worst it appears to be holding generally steady or slowly improving, which is no surprise given the price of energy.)
    What’s this slump entail?

  8. Michelangelo Avatar
    Michelangelo

    If older voters aren’t careful they’re going to create an entire generation of angry libertarians.

    Would that really be such a bad thing? :)

  9. KirkH Avatar
    KirkH

    Would that really be such a bad thing? :)

    I’m a Neo-Libertarian. So no, I don’t think it’d be such a bad thing :) I love this blog, read it every day, but I have a sinking feeling that Jeff’s political leanings are affecting his arguments on media.
    For instance, he could look into the effects of this media transformation on the future of politics or democracy. I don’t think he can though without alienating slightly more than 50% of his readers.

  10. Terry Heaton Avatar
    Terry Heaton

    Religion in the public square is a subject that needs an airing. It does not get that airing, because everybody is too busy assigning opposing views to condemnation.
    In his provocative book, The Naked Public Square, Richard Neuhaus offers the thesis that the public square MUST be clothed in the values and beliefs of the culture and that the concept of removing religion entirely is absurd. This book was seized by the right as validation of their propositions, and Neuhaus was subsequently vilified. I think that was a shame, because the noise drowned out his argument, just as it is today in our attempts to one-up the guy who doesn’t believe what we believe.
    We are a profoundly religious people. We just can’t seem to agree on what that means. And because it’s such a personal thing, we wander out onto thin ice the moment our eyes become fixed on the other guy rather than on ourselves.
    I agree with Jeff that Republicans will have difficulty in the coming years over The Schaivo case, but not because of anything anybody says about it in a political forum. The damage has already been done.
    As I tell my clients (and anybody who’ll listen), the media age has produced a citizenry that is extremely hip to manipulation. We underestimate this at our own peril. That which is self-serving is transparent in our culture, and that’s true regardless of the side of the aisle from which it’s coming.
    I don’t trust the media, nor do I trust the government. I do, however, trust the people to generally get it right.

  11. paul_lukasiak Avatar
    paul_lukasiak

    if you look at the pre- 9/11 polls, you will see that the nation was already becoming disenchanted with Bush in less than 9 months in office.
    Americans are beginning to understand who Bush is, and finally disposing of the myth of Bush that 9/11 made it necessary to believe in.
    Unlike Clinton, who maintained high job approval ratings despite dismal “personal approval” ratings, Bush’s job approval ratings are directly tied to how people perceive him as a person. (Bush’s personal approval ratings consistently track 5-7 points higher than his job approval.)

  12. paladin Avatar
    paladin

    Terry Heaton is correct—this is press generated manipulation. The left/liberal press that inhabits MSM is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-religion secularists. Since the ’60s, their view has been ascendent. But the wheel keeps turning, and we are returning to a more conservative era. The religious right has every right to have their views considered in a democracy. That the press and some Democrat politicians are mocking and demeaning people of faith is outrageous, and borders on religious bigotry in my view. What if the Sacred Pillars of the Democrats (blacks, gays, abortionists, etc.)rallied to press their case to Congress, the public and POTUS? The press would be on their moral high horse showing the righteousness of the “Sacred Pillars” pressing for their rights. When the religous press for their rights, it’s framed as as a “theocracy” and “religious extremists” attempting to turn back the clock to the l950s, etc. ZZzzzzzz. Don’t those in the press realize we’re on to their little scam? Case in point: remember all the negative press about the new “Nazi Pope”? A survey of US Catholics show they approve the new “Nazi Pope” by 75%. Who’s out of touch here?

  13. Hoodlumman Avatar
    Hoodlumman

    Question: If the issues did turn to energy and healthcare and the GOP does what the Dems are doing now (oppose, oppose, oppose, no plan, just oppose), will the GOP get the same free pass and Republican oversampled polls plastered on the front pages?
    I’ll give you three guesses…

  14. Kim Avatar
    Kim

    Why does it always end up right vs. left and vice versa? Why can’t a person believe in a religous faith (of thier choosing) without trying to enlist others into the same religeous sect? Why can’t the US concentrate on the fact that there are many more religions practiced in this country than christianity. I am so sick of hearing left versus right. Why is the word “morals” always equated with faith? I think that is a gross misinterpretation. Why can’t someone “do the right thing for others” and still be an atheist or a christian? Or Buddhist for that matter.

  15. paladin Avatar
    paladin

    You are so right, Kim. In the press it’s always “If It Feels Good Do It vs. God Sez. How trite and bogus our press has become. No wonder we’re fleeing from MSM like rats from a sinking ship.

  16. billg Avatar
    billg

    People are smart enough to recognize the difference between belief and behavior. All of us, including Bush’s judicial nominees, are free to believe what we will. Almost all Americans would agree that the beliefs of others are none of our business. But, the behavior, or the prospective behavior, of public officials is very much our business. If someone behaves in a way we don’t like, we will oppose them. If someone’s characterization of their beliefs tells us their future behavior is likely to be hostile to our interests, we will them. That’s one of the benefits of free expression: We can judge prospective public officials before they take office.
    Opposing a candidate, a judicial nominee, or a party. because you fear the actions they seem likely to take based on their public professions of belief, is merely commone sense. The obligation to allow someone freedom of belief and freedom of expression does not imply their right to retsrict our freedoms.

  17. Jim S Avatar
    Jim S

    Well, at least several posters here are more than willing to show what Jeff means by insane religion. People like paladin think that their religious freedom is defined by using the force of government to live according to what they think God wants. paladin doesn’t think that anyone but he and those who agree with him could possibly have a clue what God expects of them and therefore it is just and good for his beliefs to become the law of the land. IMO, he should just convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia. He’d be happy as a clam in a land where no religious dissent is tolerated as long as it’s his religion that has the power.

  18. paladin Avatar
    paladin

    Don’t push me into your little Black&White World, JimS—you have no idea what I think.

  19. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    IMHO, it’s not just fear of an overtly activist religious element making themselves felt in the administration and trying to take on existing institutions such as congress, the court, and UN, with strongarm tactics that would do credit to the 50’s AFL-CIO.
    It’s a growing contrast of administration activities – promoting business/industrial interests over those of public interest – with its longago compassionate conservative mantra.
    Also of note today on growing administration alienation from public interests: Richard Cohen on WaPo:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042701875.html
    “So, in a way, I feel a bit solicitous toward the embattled Bolton. He must wonder why, of all the fibbers and exaggerators and outright liars in the Bush administration, he alone is being asked to account for what he said and what he did. It is a fair enough question and leads me to amend a recent column in which I called Bolton a nut. He is, instead, Cheney’s acorn. He did not fall far from the tree.”
    There goes Mr. Cohen’s invitation to WH parties.

  20. Ptolemy Avatar
    Ptolemy

    Stating that the Religious Right has a right to have their opinions heard in a democracy is not the same thing as state-mandated religion Jim S. A society that fights for hateful freaks like Churchill and Sharpton to be heard can surely handle Falwell’s views (ignorant pig that he is).

  21. billg Avatar
    billg

    Ptolemy, see my earlier post about belief versus behavior. The right of the “Religious Right” to express their opinions is not at issue. (Although many people across the spectrum confuse the right to speak freely with the expectation that someone will pay attention. But, of course, the right of free speech does not imply an obligation to listen.)

    Behavior driven by belief is an entirely different issue. If someone seeks to use the force of government to compel behavior that I oppose, then I have every right to oppose their efforts, regardless of their motivation.

    I believe in sustaining and expanding personal freedoms. Much of the political agenda of the religious right seeks to use government to restrict those freedoms. Most of the hot button social issues center on behaviors that the religious rights considers wrong, if not sinful. Rather than simply avoiding those behaviors themselves, they seek to use government to force the rest of us to change our behaviors. That’s wrong and that’s dangerous.

  22. paul_lukasiak Avatar
    paul_lukasiak

    Question: If the issues did turn to energy and healthcare and the GOP does what the Dems are doing now (oppose, oppose, oppose, no plan, just oppose), will the GOP get the same free pass and Republican oversampled polls plastered on the front pages?
    of course the GOP would be treated differently. They CONTROL THE AGENDA, and its up to them to do come up with proposals to put on that agenda.
    It should also be noted that you are simply spewing GOP talking points by claiming that all the Dems do is say ‘no’. The Dems do have an agenda, and have offered bills on a variety of issues — the GOP which controls the agenda won’t give those bills a hearing.

  23. paladin Avatar
    paladin

    I see GWB has come out with a new energy policy. It will be interesting to see how serious Congress is about getting it done, and I mean both Republicans and Democrats. This will be just another round of Environmental Wackos vs. Greedy Oil Companies. The same old left v. right and extremist v. extremist. In other words the same kabuki theatre we always get from politicians instead of honest and serious debate, and subsequent effective policies. The obvious solution is to offend the special interest groups on both sides. We need serious conservation practices, and we also need new drilling. Maybe a hefty tax to boot—–nah! Never gonna happen.

  24. Kim Avatar
    Kim

    Billg-
    You make some very good points.
    I propose we (as a nation) overturn the laws that make church’s a tax-exempt entity. If the church can use funds in politics as muscle to get thier way, I say forget the tax right-off, its a corporation!!

  25. Patricia Avatar
    Patricia

    Terry, you are so correct about the media underestimating the public. It’s not that the media have changed–we have. We have all been educated to understand and deconstruct them and their messages. We understand them–they don’t understand us.

  26. eddy Avatar
    eddy

    Right on, Kim. It’s like George Carlin said… If these religious-types are so interested in politics, let them pay the admission price like everyone else!

  27. paladin Avatar
    paladin

    I couldn’t agree more, Kim, but why stop with just churches? Let’s go after all organizations claiming tax-exempt status, but who are clearly political players, like the NAACP. Let’s clear out the whole viper’s nest. You only touched on half the problem.

  28. Evan Avatar
    Evan

    It’s amazing how people see what they want to see.
    The Andrew Sullivan/Glenn Reynolds/Jeff Jarvis crowd don’t much care for social conservatives, so they immediately see that as the source for Republican problems, when most people don’t even remember Terry Schiavo’s name anymore.
    I accept the Clinton wisdom. It’s the economy, stupid. There is no doubt that in the past month the economy has slowed. Orders are drying up, carmakers are reporting losses, gas prices are up, consumer confidence is down, the stock market is down, and shipping companies are adding fuel surcharges onto everything.
    The economy isn’t bad yet, but worry always precedes (and often causes) the actual result. And there are worrisome signs. It is why Swarzenegger’s poll numbers are down as well, despite having no social conservative positions.
    But guys like Jarvis live in a bubble, only a different shade of one than the MSM bubble, which is why he thinks that what he is passionate about must be true for the country as a whole.

  29. billg Avatar
    billg

    Kim —
    I’d agree with the removal of tax exemptions for churches. While we’re at it, I’d also like to see the government get out of the marriage game. If the rights and welfare of gay couples are sufficently protected by civic unions, then civic unions ought to also sufficiently protect the rights and welfare of straight couples. Let’s just have government trade only in civic unions. If people want to consecrate their partnership in a church, that’s between them and the church, not the state.

  30. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    Billg, I absolutely agree. Let the churches call them “marriages” if they want. Call legal contacts, “civil unions”.

  31. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Wasn’t Pat Robertson’s defeat by the public, after having proclaimed that God told him to run for president, a fitting comment on the role of religion in politics. After all, according to Robertson that’s God’s word on the subject. NO.
    As to gay marriage: Without marriage there can be no divorce. Without divorce there can be no property division.
    I’m with the Texas gubernatorial candidate who supports gay marriage because “why shouldn’t they be miserable like the rest of us”.
    Tax exemptions are too much used as a tax dodge, as is the title of minister. While churches should be free to distribute funds to support groups of all sorts, they should definitely not be used to distribute political favors, most particularly from the pulpit.

  32. sue Avatar
    sue

    i think bush is taking the brunt of the msm that can still do major damage despite the work of bloggers or fox news. the simple fact is that if/when people do pay attention they are reading headlines and catching the 6:00 news. more women listen to diane sawyer, george steph-, and katie couric in the mornings. the dems/liberals still have the attention of the press who encourages them to throw themselves around especially when they are saying idiotic things that have little to do with sound reason and legitimate arguments. (salazar’s “anti-christ”? howard dean’s i hate them all”? come on!) bush is unfairly suffering from that. the msm is making the big deal about religious conservatives more than most of the religious conservatives. most of us are just ordinary people who want fairness and honesty and decency in our lives. we also don’t want to be blatantly pandered to. not all of us are blindly devoted to jerry falwall or to pat buch- and his neo-conservatism. billy graham is a democrat for petesake. if there were more balance in the msm things would be looking better for him in the polls. he also doesn’t get weak in the knees when the going gets tough. things can’t be lovely all the time when there are difficult things to work through. i GLAD he isn’t poll driven like bill/hillary clinton, poll junkies that they are. people are silly and lazy thinking that the high gas prices are all bush’s fault, but how educated are they by any other sources than fox news/bloggers? i make the effort, but i have the time and resources to check blogs and watch fox. i’m grateful for their work. i don’t find it insulting like that of chris matthews, daily kos, maureen down, paul krugman, and the nyt or wash post who all put out lazy, biased so-called reporting, poor reasoning, and skewed facts. and why does the left bash the right and christians for our values while hillary seems to think she has to move to the right to claim them for herself?