TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 12:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:23 AM
November 20, 2008 | 10:57 AM

November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM
November 20, 2008 | 12:03 PM
November 20, 2008 | 10:45 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
November 19, 2008 | 3:17 PM
November 19, 2008 | 2:17 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
27.02.2008
Dairy Farming and the God Gap

Yesterday, in a tiny northern corner of NewYork state, in a blood-red district six hours from Manhattan, a Democratic assemblyman walloped a Republican opponent in a hotly-contested race for a vacant state senate seat.

 

The race is of interest not least because it represents a Democratic takeover of one of the most staunchly Republican constituencies in the state--the district was last represented by a Democrat in the early (00s-early) 20th century. It also closes the Republican margin in the state senate--GOP-controlled since the 1960s--to a single vote. Scads of local Democratic money and big GOTV efforts from progressive state organizations like the Working Families Party went into this more-than-symbolic victory. 

 

The real story, however, may be the political heterodoxy of both these candidates. Darrel Aubertine, sixth-generation Democrat (and dairy farmer) and yesterday's winner, holds a staunchly pro-life position on abortion. William Barclay, conversely, is a lifelong Republican with a whiff of the aristocratic about him, who nonetheless supports choice. Though electing Democratic candidates is the name of the game for liberals this election year, the Aubertine pill was hard to swallow for hardcore, upscale Democrats in New York City. A friend in local politics told me that the sense of trench warfare, especially among older voters for whom abortion rights are sacrosanct, made Aubertine seem "suspect."

 

If the New York 48th district race proves anything, it may be that Democratic party affiliation is finally being freed of an outdated litmus test on choice. Amy Sullivan probes this "god gap" willingly and thoughtfully in a new book and also in a series of op-eds she's been writing for Time and elsewhere. She details the massive failure of Democrats to reach out to people of faith basically since the 1980s, ceding valuable political ground and pigeonholing the party as one that "prized fealty to the pro-choice position over even party affiliation." (Bill Clinton was a one-man-band of religiosity, and the only exception to this rule.)

 

35 years out from Roe, it's a ways to go before choice recedes from prominence in the political discourse (with good reason). But it's nice to see the monkey off one politician's back. There are also hints of greater changes to come if Obama is the Democratic nominee, first broadcast here.

  

 

 

If the Democratic politicians do overcome the fear of religion and the self-imposed God Gap, I'd be the first to say the progressive agenda is in great shape.

 

--Dayo Olopade

Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:41 PM with 4 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

williamyard said:

Choice (I hate that term--disingenuous unless one also affords it to the fetus) certainly is one issue in flux. Another is the price of cattle feed. What with biodiesel gobbling up corn and China stuffing U.S. grain and soybeans into their burgeoning lust for red meat, dairy farmers have a more pressing choice these days and even more so in the future, which is to feed their cattle or to eat them.

They may be placated by subsidies for the time being, but I got a nagging macroeconomic itch that says America's been blowing hot air into keeping agriculture aloft for some time now, and America's gettin' winded.

Whichever party figures out the feed issue--and good luck with that!--gets the farmers' votes, according to moi.

(Any resident farmers--e.g., literate hobos--care to comment?)

February 27, 2008 1:21 PM

David52194 said:

Dayo Olopade wrote: “If the New York 48th district race proves anything, it may be that Democratic party affiliation is finally being freed of an outdated litmus test on choice.”

What do you mean by “outdated litmus test on choice?”  It is good for people to be pro-choice on abortion.  Specifically, it is good for people to oppose having laws that would fine doctors, or put them in prison, for performing abortions.  And it is good for people to oppose fining women, or putting them in prison, for having abortions.  When you are in prison, you are severely limited in what you can do.  And fines can be onerous.  Moreover, the fetus is physically in the woman, and not particularly well-developed neurologically and cognitively.

Dayo wrote: “She details the massive failure of Democrats to reach out to people of faith basically since the 1980s, ceding valuable political ground and pigeonholing the party as one that ‘prized fealty to the pro-choice position over even party affiliation.’ (Bill Clinton was a one-man-band of religiosity, and the only exception to this rule.)”

What steps do you and Amy Sullivan think that Democrats should take to “reach out to people of faith?”  I’d much rather that political candidates not talk about their religious beliefs while running for office.  For one, the current ethos -- of many candidates talking about their religious beliefs -- might make it harder for non-religious people to get elected to public office.  

Dayo wrote: “If the Democratic politicians do overcome the fear of religion and the self-imposed God Gap, I'd be the first to say the progressive agenda is in great shape.”

Which Democratic politicians show a “fear of religion and self-imposed God Gap?”  And what do you mean by that?  

February 27, 2008 2:43 PM

The Plank said:

Scott Lemieux over at TAPPED takes issue with the way Amy Sullivan talks about abortion: [Sullivan's

February 27, 2008 6:07 PM

The Plank said:

There's been a fair amount of back-and-forth on the issue of abortion and its perennially inflammatory

February 27, 2008 10:25 PM