Lying to the fundies is in fact the chute George W. Bush (with Billy Graham's blessing) exploited in his reaching the White House, but that by itself does not make it a good thing, or a sharp tactical step for every candidate, every contest, either party. Yet, the fundies have been used, every time there's been an election ever since the Gipper succeeded via that shallow route of ends and means.
Dominionists on both sides of the lie are the worse, giving prompt false witness and accepting it all too readily even when common sense cautions otherwise. Dominionists serve corporate voting aims (and corporatist/Doninionist candidates such as Greg Gianforte in Montana) via their herd instinct which arguably sacrifices good sense to working as a major "in the GOP bag" constituency for GOTV purposes despite neither party's top management, both parties, thinking the evangelicals are much besides brain-wearied kooks who if reasonable should expect nothing but near-election lying of the worse false-promising kind to move the grunting beast to do its seemingly perpetual task of showing up on election day in droves and voting Republican. Then to be ignored until needed again, next election, when they get promised to, same way, yet again.
 |
| opening of a Politico op-ed item which gives free advice |
Given that things are as they are, some beltway punditry goes afoul of good, plain, common sense, if suggesting it believes itself. Is the message to be false and lie, or to tone down a message where you may not win any fundie votes, but you try not to incite greater droves of them being driven to vote? Is it necessary to say don't deliberately molest a hornets' nest if it can be quietly sidestepped? Is that actual punditry? From late in the item to its ending:
In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Muslim employee of an Abercrombie & Fitch store who was told her hijab did not align with the companies “aesthetic,” and she would have to remove it or be fired.
And therein lies a possible path forward for Jones. Moore promises to be a champion for evangelicals, but there are few things that would be deadlier to evangelicals’ politics than to be represented in the United States Senate by a bomb-thrower like Moore. The religious freedom of Christian employees to follow their faith, or of Christian institutions to organize around their beliefs, is inextricably tied to the right of Muslims, Sikhs, Jewish Americans and other faiths to do the same. At what point has Moore proven successful in defending religious freedom? He has cynically used the issue to advance his own career, and constantly undermines it with his attacks on non-Christians. Jones should tell Alabamians that he, unlike Moore, understands that religious freedom is either going to be protected for everyone or it will fail to exist for anyone, and he should commit to applying the same skill and passion to the issue he employed in prosecuting the KKK.
Moore looks like a prophet to some, because he’s warned all along that Washington would force its values on places like Alabama. In 2006, 81 percent of Alabama voters supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and fewer than 10 years later their vote was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. Jones should be able to affirm that decision, while also making clear that he does not think it mandates the government to exert pressure to change the teachings of Alabama’s churches or faithful. This may sound obvious, and it is, but that is exactly why Jones should say it: Demogogues like Moore prey on the fears of evangelical voters, relying on Democrats’ unwillingness to even make basic attempts to speak their language or appeal for their votes.
None of this would require Jones to compromise his integrity, though national Democrats and some activists might get queasy if, say, he does promise to vote “present” on abortion. If that happens, they should remember: Jones would represent another key vote on protecting Obamacare, the social safety net, voting rights and criminal justice reform. It would also mean that Alabama would no longer be sending two pro-life votes to the Senate, which would be extraordinary in itself, and could play a deciding factor in key votes. And even more importantly, a morally repugnant candidate would be kept out of the world’s greatest deliberative body and denied a national platform to spread his noxious, divisive views.
In scripture, the phrase “stumbling block” refers to actions that might give reason for a Christian to not do what they ought to do anyways. Doug Jones appears to be a good man, with a sterling reputation and a history of fighting for justice. But to win, he’s going to have to remove obstacles that are preventing evangelical voters from embracing him. Being a better person than Roy Moore is not enough: He’s going to have to do everything he can, within the bounds of his own conscience, to reasssure Alabamians that he won’t be pushing an agenda on social issues that’s out of step with their values. We’re counting on him. As Jesus said in Luke 17:1, “Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come!”
Is this berating the obvious; is it anything beyond "Try to leave sleeping dogs lie;" or is it suggesting an upwind action more likely than not to get Doug Jones very wet, should he take it as good advice? Or should Jones honestly and boldly set out an agenda aimed at causing a progressive GOTV rather than trying to sneak away from what the Roy Moore supporters will be hammering on in their GOTV effort?
Ossoff in the Georgia special election played "avoid the questions," and lost. Rob Quist in the Montana special election differentiated himself, even inviting Bernie to help campaign, and lost. Each of those two special elections cost a ton of money on both sides, and this one likely will be similar.
Does that mean those consultancy answers of wheedle the rich bozo donor bloc for money are the only or best feasible ways and means of progressives' needs being recognized and met?