The Race Is On, And It’s Getting Weird
It has been less than two weeks since Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race, and even less time since Kamala Harris entered the race. In that time, the Democratic Party quickly unified around the new nominee and momentum seems to have shifted.
Energy among the Democrats, which was at Bidenesque levels after the debate, has soared. One example is a Harris rally of YUGE proportions held in Atlanta earlier this week. The high-energy event would have been unimaginable if Joe Biden remained at the helm.
Harris is also taking on Donald Trump more directly and frequently than President Biden. At the event, she responded to Trump’s insults by challenging him to a debate and telling him, “If you’ve got something to say, say it to my face.”
Team Harris has also launched a new strategy of denigrating the MAGA Republicans as “weird.” The label seems to have been first applied to JD Vance, a man who has advocated such ideas as giving minor children votes in elections that would be exercised by their parents. Vance’s hostility to childless adults, such as his rants against “cat ladies,” does seem, well, weird. And I’m not even going to discuss the apparently false sofa rumors. Honestly, I just don’t want to research that.
Although a lot of normal Americans support Donald Trump, “weird” really is a good descriptor for a large segment of MAGA, beginning with their leader. Donald Trump’s weirdness has been long noted and roundly mocked. His list of weird behaviors may only be exceeded by the list of his lies and includes an obsession with sharks and Hannibal Lecter as well as his propensity to hug and kiss the American flag. Have you ever seen anyone else do that?
And Trump’s weirdness filters down to his base. If you’re on social media, you’ve seen the adoring posts and memes, often with religious overtones and imagery. There is also the cultlike behavior of flying Trump flags from homes, cars, and boats and wearing their leader’s image on star-spangled clothing. I can imagine the reaction if Democrats had gone half as crazy for Barack Obama.
The Democrats have their own weirdness, such as when it comes to the politics of transgenderism, but so far, Harris and the Democratic leadership seem to be embracing normalcy. On Tuesday, the Harris campaign reassessed some of the policy positions that the former senator held in the past. CNN reported that Harris is moving to the center as she reverses such positions as her previous support for a ban on fracking and single-payer healthcare. She has also reaffirmed her support for Israel.
So far, the Trump campaign does not seem to know how to handle Harris. On a recorded phone call to donors reported in the Washington Post, Vance said, “All of us were hit with a little bit of a political sucker punch” when Harris replaced Biden.
Still, Vance argued, “I don’t think the political calculus changes at all. We were running against Joe Biden’s open border, Kamala Harris’s open border. Kamala Harris supported the green new scam. Kamala Harris, frankly, covered Joe Biden even though it was obvious he was mentally incompetent for a very long time.”
But as Harris has energized Democrats, Trump has made missteps. At a speech in West Palm Beach, Trump was recorded telling an assembled group of Christians, “In four years, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore.”
Trump also seemed to say, “I’m not Christian,” before saying again, “In four years, you don’t have to vote again, we’ll have it fixed.” I don’t think that Trump meant to tell voters that he wasn’t Christian, but it may have been a Freudian slip.
To be clear, there is no reason in a democracy that Republicans won’t have to vote again. There seem to be only two explanations: Trump is either not planning on having meaningful elections after 2028 or he doesn’t care if Christians vote for Republicans after this year. There is no way to constitutionally “fix” the country so that voting is not required.
Following his pattern of doubling down on dumbness, The Former Guy was offered a softball chance to explain or walk back those comments in a Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham. In his rambling answer, Trump reiterated that he told “the Christians,” that “You have to vote on November 5, after that you don’t have to worry about voting anymore, I don’t care, because we are going to fix it, the country will be fixed, and we won’t even need your vote anymore because frankly, we will have such love, if you don’t want to vote anymore, that’s okay.”
Sinister or delusional? You be the judge.
In another flub, Trump admitted again that Republicans killed the recent attempt at immigration reform for political reasons rather than because it was a bad bill. Again speaking to Laura Ingraham, when asked about why he ordered Republicans to kill the bill, Trump answered, “Well, they allow 5,000 people a week, but a lot of people took it as 5,000 people a day. They said 5,000 people a week, and you read it and it says 5,000 people a day. Number one, that, but it also made it much better for the opposing side.”
The 5,000 number has become the subject of much misinformation. The number was lower than the average border crossings at the time, but Senator James Lankford, one of the bill’s Republican authors, explained that the number did not represent what MAGA pundits said it did.
Quoted in Politifact from a speech on the Senate floor, Lankford said, “It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous. The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.”
So when Trump and Vance talk about the “open” border, insofar as the border remains open (it’s really not because there are a high number of arrests and detentions), it is open because Donald Trump killed immigration reform because it would have benefitted the Democrats.
In another sign that Democratic attacks are hitting home, Paul Dans, the director of Heritage’s Project 2025, has stepped down.
Project 2025 became the focus of Democratic criticism (and no small amount of fearmongering) and even Trump criticized and tried to disavow the effort. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump campaign had pressured Heritage to lower Project 2025’s profile.
Trump campaign senior advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita said in a joint statement, “Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign—it will not end well for you,” but I’ll wager that the project would be quickly resurrected after a Trump victory. Indeed, Heritage’s Kevin Roberts says that work on Project 2025 will continue.
After I had completed this article, the news of Trump’s interview with the National Association of Black Journalistsbroke. This was a Biden-level disaster in which Trump claimed that Kamala Harris only recently started identifying as a black woman. Trump’s meltdown was so offensive that I have to wonder if he wants to chase away minority voters, but it’s more likely that from within his bubble he doesn’t realize how outrageous – weird – what he’s saying is. After this performance, Republicans should really consider trying to force him off the ballot or following the Mystic Society of No-Homers strategy and starting over from scratch.
The Harris campaign has had missteps as well. Notably, Harris has tried to rewrite history by denying her role as Joe Biden’s border czar. While she can play a semantic game and claim that she was never officially dubbed “border czar,” President Biden did delegate authority to attack the border crisis to her in 2021.
If I was the Harris campaign, I would address this claim in two ways. First, I would point out that illegal immigration has declined sharply from its peak. Second, I would point out that Republicans kill every immigration reform bill with a chance of passage and play the clips of Donald Trump taking responsibility for killing the most recent attempt at border reform over and over and over.
If momentum in the race has shifted, is this reflected in polling? The answer is sort of.
As I always caution, don’t put too much stock in individual polls. The two main polling average sites, Real Clear Polling and FiveThirtyEight, both show Harris trailing Trump nationally by two and three points respectively. Trump’s edge has increased slightly in both averages due to a surge that may well represent a post-convention bump.
In the swing states, the race seems to be tightening. Even though I said not to focus on individual polls, there aren’t too many new state-level polls that have been released since Harris kicked off her campaign, so here’s the rundown based on very limited new information:
Arizona – Trump led handily before the big switch. The only poll since then, from Bloomberg/Morning Consult, shows Harris ahead by four points when third parties are considered and two points in a two-way race.
Georgia – Another Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll shows a dead heat at 45 percent each when third parties are considered and 47 percent in a two-way race. A Socal Research poll after Biden dropped out showed Trump up by four.
Michigan – In a state where Trump seemed to be in trouble even when Biden was still in the race, Morning Consult shows Harris with a double-digit lead. This lead is so large and represents such a significant swing that it makes me skeptical. It may well be an outlier.
Nevada – Here Bloomberg/Morning Consult shows a statistical tie with Harris leading by two in a two-way race after Trump led polling against Biden.
North Carolina – Morning Consult shows Trump with a small lead within the margin of error.
Pennsylvania – There have been a number of recent polls here with a range that swings from Harris ahead by four to Trump ahead by four.
Wisconsin – The most recent polling after the switch yields a split decision. Bloomberg/Morning Consult shows Harris ahead by two in a two-way race and Trump ahead by one in the multiparty poll.
The gist of the polling is that Trump’s edge in the swing states has eroded since Joe Biden left the race. It’s also interesting to note that Harris often benefits from having third parties included in the polling, contrary to the conventional wisdom that candidates like RFKJR and Jill Stein help Trump.
The current state of the race is a nail-biter. Donald Trump is clinging to his lead, but the race has tightened to a tossup. PredictIt, the political betting site, shows a near tie with Trump down one cent to 52 cents and Harris up a penny at 50 cents. True to form, the battleground states are mostly within the margin of error.
If you remember the 2020 Democratic primary, Kamala Harris was an early favorite. That year, her campaign flamed out quickly and she became one of the first candidates to drop out. In fact, her campaign didn’t make it to 2020, ending in December 2019.
Republicans should not take comfort in this fact. The primary in 2020 was very different from the current general election campaign. Harris looks very different to voters when she’s one of a dozen or so Democrats vying for the nomination as opposed to being the presumptive nominee and only viable alternative to Donald Trump.
As I said earlier, momentum currently favors Harris, but no one should declare victory yet. If 2024 has taught us anything, it is to expect the unexpected. Anything can happen and it probably will.
The only things Leftists enjoy more than supporting Open Borders is lying about it.Report
That’s a weird thing to say!Report
Right, because the Border Patrol is bastian of secret Disney liberals . . . If you want to troll us you need to up your game.
Better yet, take your weird troll and go home .Report
We enjoy lying about plenty of things more than than we enjoy open borders!
We’re having a blast lying about Vance’s inappropriate relationship with a couch.Report
Imagine believing that Democrats want to fix the border chaos and it’s only those mean Republicans blocking them. LOL.Report
So you think it’s NOT true that a bipartisan border security bill collapsed when Republicans withdrew support?Report
I’m not sure if your serious, but the bill was a total joke like every other “comprehensive” reform. Just thrown up so the Democrats could whip up their feral supporters into blaming Republicans for their non belief in governance.Report
What did Republicans do about the border when they had the House, Senate and White House at the beginning of the Trump Administration?Report
In general polls were sticky for a while and remain sticky but I think there is real momentum towards Harris and it will only continue but for a while the polls will remain in the margin of error.Report
The polls were in the margin of error for Biden after his debate performance. That didn’t stop much of anything.Report
Harris is up plus 1 in Georgia and only slightly trailing in PA and AZ. She is soaring in Michigan.Report
“Weird” should prove as effective as “basket of deplorables”, or “fake news”.Report
Interesting comparisons considering that Hill lost, and Trump won in the election where those two other terms were used which seems to suggest you think Weird will also be effective?
Personally, I think most of the weird thing, and also the furniture erotica, is just summer doldrum stuff.Report
I meant that both terms were introduced by the D side and united the R side.Report
Didn’t Trump introduce or popularize the “Fake news” thing?Report
Trump introduced it, CNN and MSNBC popularized it.Report
CNN tried to roll it out against Trump, and he used it to roll over them.Report
As someone who was weird before weird was cool, I’m pleased to see that weird is weird again.
That said, I’m not sure that introducing high school mean girls tools to the election is to the benefit of Harris (assuming 3 groups of voters).Report
I’m not sure weird is the best word, the best word would actually be something like creepy or lunatic.
But no matter how much people pretend the word weird always means the same thing, there’s a fundamentally different weird between ‘guy talking about how kids should be able to vote but their parents get to do it for them’ and ‘person who sometimes wears a really dumb hat’.
A lot of things that Republicans have been saying for a while are just batsh*t crazy, and weird seems to be a way that that actually gets pointed out. I don’t know why that’s working, but it is.
And, in the case of Trump, there’s also the ‘weirdo who hangs around the teen girl dressing room’, or even the ‘guy who wanders around the debate stage stalking his opponent’, which is actually one of the places that it came from, Harris’s response to how she would behave if she had been in Hillary Clinton’s place during that debate.
And a good chunk of the reason it’s working is that Republicans actually have this mental image of themselves as normal, and actually start flipping out when you point out that a lot of Republican views are pretty far outside of mainstream.Report
The right is less afraid of engaging with weird ideas.Report
If anything, it’s addicted to it.Report
No, the left has equally ‘weird’ ideas, ideas that are equally as far outside the mainstream.
But the _Democrats_ don’t.
The Republicans are running their weird little gremlin people with wackadoodle ideas that the mainstream does not like…for major office.
The Democrats just tried to run Biden.
The Republicans have tried, for years, to pretend that Democratic politicians are the same as the far left, that’s basically been their only line of attack ever against Nancy Pelosi. (Along with pretending that all of San Francisco is the far left)
Meanwhile, they’re running people (like, on the actual ballot) who will say dubious things about whether we should have legal _contraceptives_ and question if women voting has been a good thing. At least, they’ll say it in private.Report
The left is afraid of ideas. The left insulates itself from ideas, even as it declares itself to be open. It’s open to lack of ideas, and to the idea that there are no norms. And some 19th century superstitions about the means of production. The right will engage with ideas and ask, are they any good? The left will propose another item on its old agenda and ask, are the people ready for this yet?
Healthy minds engage with weird ideas. Unhealthy minds lead to disordered lives.Report
That must explain why almost everything I have heard from the right in recent years is only minor variations on what I heard in dorm room bull sessions 50 years ago.Report
You are gonna need to show your work sir.
Take healthcare – the left still believes in universal healthcare as a right, but it implemented the right’s market based solutions in the ACA. And the right – instead of taking the win, spent years trying to repeal its own ideas.
Or abortion? Know what a great way to lower abortion demand is? Help people (particularly young people) have sex using birth control. But rather then take the easy path (supported by both data and the left), the right spent 40 years stacking the judiciary to eliminate body autonomy for women. Which is having some disastrous consequences.
I could go on …Report
You just cited two very old leftist priorities.Report
I’m citing examples of the right rejecting ideas – including their own. You continue to whistle past the proverbial graveyard.Report
The ACA wasn’t a Republican plan for the country. It was a plan for a state. Republicans like plans, and they like experimenting with them at the state or local level.Report
Well they spent 13 months talking to President Obama about how to make that plan more to their liking at the federal level after its wild success in Massachusetts. They got Democrats to support 72 amendments to that plan to make i more to their liking. Then they voted against it as a block all the while preening about how they were just trying to hand Obama a defeat.
So yeah, I remain unconvinced, and you have yet to show your work otherwise.Report
“They passed it without a single Republican vote. So why does it suck?”
“The Republicans.”Report
Slight quibble- the masses generally think that the ACA is aces now. Just took Trump and his party actually coming close to taking it away and Biden polishing it up again once he got into office. To find the “ACA sucks” contingents you gotta go to republicans or medicare for all leftists now.Report
It’s a weird parallax.
“I’ve got someone outside saying that Obamacare sucks.”
“Who is it?”
“A republican.”
“THAT DISHONEST MOTHERFATHER I WILL RIP HIM A NEW ONE!”
“Okay, your second meeting is with someone who says that Obamacare sucks… but it’s a Democrat.”
“Sigh… let me get my hair shirt…”Report
Eh that’s just partisanship. A wealthy libertarian coming to a Republican to complain that a given Republican tax cut was bad will get a much different (and more tongue bathy) reception than a Dem or a leftist coming to say the same thing.Report
We don’t know whether it’s good or whether it’s bad. We just know that criticizing it is only justified if you have the right opinions on something else entirely.Report
I don’t endorse this policy, but it does not strike me as any crazier than the status quo, where, e.g., people who have no understanding of economics are presumed competent to choose who will be setting economic policy, and a person who pays net zero taxes has just as much input into how taxes are spent as someone who pays millions of dollars per year in taxes.
I understand that “one adult, one vote” is the central dogma of our civic religion, but it’s not like there’s any rational basis for it.Report
No one who paid zero net taxes has as much input into how taxes are spent as someone who pays millions of dollars per year in taxes.
And if you think that, you don’t understand how the political system in this country works, because voting for people is not what determines how money is spent.
Studies show that more than 95% (I think it was 98% but to be safe let’s say over 95%) of the time when the policy preferences of the rich and the poor come into conflict, when they want different things, the lawmakers pick the rich people’s position. We actually only get policies that help the poor because enough rich people want to help the poor, no poor person could actually vote themselves more money.Report
Imagine the consequences of letting only educated people to vote.
I for one, welcome our new childless cat lady overlords!Report
“How did schools get even more segregated?”Report
I’m deeply enamored of a childless cat lady. They’re the best!Report
Think what happens if you switch out some nouns in there: “People who haven’t been to war can’t…” “People who haven’t had kids can’t…” “People who haven’t taught classrooms full of kids can’t…” “People who don’t understand programming language can’t…” I don’t have an understanding of economics…or physics…or border patrolling…or most everything in the world, really, outside of my own narrow experiences. The thought that only experts experienced in a field get to vote on anything that has to do with that field is a bit…hmmm, what is the word I’m looking for?Report
It reflects the warped, weird worldview going back to Romney, and earlier to the pre-New Deal conservatism.
In this view, a nation belongs not to all citizens equally, but to shareholders. The more shares you own, the greater your say in how the nation is governed.Report
Oligarchy is the term, if we are being honest about it.Report
There was no rational basis for excluding women or people of color from voting and yet . . .Report
A few years ago, a philosophy professor no one had ever heard of, for excellent reasons, got his 15 minutes with a book that combined a Classic Comics Illustrated version of economics 101 and freshman philosophy to prove that democracy was a bad idea and advocated a not very well worked out notion of epistocracy — rule of the wise, knowledgeable, and informed — instead.
The basic flaw in his argument was assuming that the case for democracy rested on the plainly false belief that it was the best method for enacting “correct” policies, as defined by the particular experts he preferred. In effect, he was criticizing automobiles for not being able to let you drive from San Francisco to Tokyo — true, but irrelevant.
The first, and essential, feature of a system of government is that it be broadly acceptable to the governed. If the system is not broadly acceptable, the masses will, unless effectually repressed (which can, of course, be done, and has been many times), slaughter the rulers in their beds. In our time, the only form of government the governed will broadly accept is some form of democracy. They simply will not accept rule by self-certified, even objectively qualified, experts. Hell, we have had many discussions here about how they resent even being informed that, according to experts, their views on such things as crime, unemployment, and inflation, are just plain factually wrong.
That basic flaw aside, although some large classes of people are demonstrably better informed than the mass of voters on a wide variety of issues, experts themselves often disagree (You cite Friedman and Hayek, I cite Krugman and DeLong. Each of them knows far more than any of us on economics, and who are we to adjudicate between them?), and no one, no matter how smart and well-informed, can possibly have expertise, or even the ability to judge expertise, on the wide variety of policy issues that we face. So who makes up our “epistocracy,” and why should the rest of us listen to them?
The “rational basis” for one adult, one vote is that the adults and voters will accept it, and will not willingly accept alternatives. That is all the basis it needs.Report
You and I are not in disagreement. I was just trying to point out that our nation spent a lot of its history excluding a lot of its citizens from voting for irrational reasons. We’ve been there and done that – and there’s no reason to go back.Report
This. ^
Rights are not something that we have logically, through math, decided should exist. They also are not things that have actually been granted by God or a higher power, despite the fact that we pretend to believe that sometimes.
Rights are things that people demand at gunpoint, and if taken away, demand at gunpoint again.
Or, perhaps more relevantly, even if someone isn’t going to resort to violence, the right to vote is the thing that causes people to think the government is legitimate, that it has the right to behave like it behaves. Or at least maintains a social consensus that this is true, not every single individual person has to believe it, but we all vaguely mostly agree with the concept of government because we all, hypothetically, control the government.
Even though, as I pointed out, the government actually functions almost entirely to enact policies that the wealthy want, and not policies that anyone else wants if they conflict with those.Report
Some Kreliminology but today’s prisoner swap news might indicate that Putin thinks Trump is unlikely to win in November: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/08/01/world/russia-prisoner-swap-usReport
That clip of Trump talking about how Christians won’t have to vote again didn’t just sort of maybe have him saying he wasn’t a Christian, the whole thing is about him talking to Christians as a non-Christian, and it’s kind of obvious, and honestly a little bit shocking that he is completely forgotten that he is supposed to be pretending that he is one.
The funny thing is, if we take him at his word, or his campaign’s word, or the political pundits trying to come up with excuses for things he says, what he says makes sense, if he was actually talking about Evangelical Christians who traditionally, 60 years ago, did not bother voting. Of course, the reason they started voting was segregation, so promising they won’t have to vote anymore is…iffy. but whatever. And considering how much evangelicalism has changed, and no longer operates itself separately from society, it’s very unlikely that we’ll ever go back to it, but it is kind of funny what he said makes sense, and would have actually worked if he had said evangelicals, but he said Christians like he thinks all Christians are evangelicals and also that he is not one of either of those groups.Report
That makes sense if you assume that Trump was trying to make sense.Report
An assumption that makes no sense.Report
Yeah, I’m not sure that that was what Trump was trying to say, mostly because I don’t think Trump tries to say things and is just sort of a mouth hooked up to a grievance brain.
I was just saying that there is some hypothetical universe where a certain _subset_ of Christians don’t vote, and we know that because it used to be this universe. We’re not going back to that, and it’s not what Trump was trying to say, but it is hypothetically possible that whoever he talked to about this sort of kind of mentioned it, like that might be the origin of what he was talking about even if he’s too dumb to know it.
Because there was indeed a somewhat large group of Christians who would run around quoting John 15:18-19: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”
“In the world, not of it.” (Which I think is actually from a different verse but I can’t be bothered to find it) It’s a belief that Christianity exists seperate from the world, and a large chunk of them did not do things in politics, at all. Not even vote. You pay taxes (render unto Caesar), you followed the laws unless they were manifestly unjust, but you didn’t really concern yourself with anything past that. You didn’t try to enforce morality, you didn’t even particularly try to make the world better via the government.
I’m not sure that group of Christians exists anymore at all. I think enough political pressure has resulted in them thinking, at minimum, the world is horrifically corrupt and withdrawing from it even more, but turning around and voting. If that strain of Christianity has turned into anything, it’s homeschoolers, I suspect.
Weirdly, I’m not sure if this group has a name, theologically. Because it’s not so much a set of beliefs about religion, it’s a set of beliefs about the world. I think about them as linked with Evangelicals, but I’m not sure that’s correct or relevant.
Anyway, it’s very stupid to generalize that group to all Christians, that group was never all or even most Christians and might literally no longer exist at all, but there’s no way in hell Trump has any distinction in his head between kinds of Christians.
That has not stopped some political pundits from pretending that was what he was talking about norhas it stopped them from lying their ass off and claiming that the reason those Christians started voting was because they ‘needed’ to, when in fact that was one of the major pushes of the right since the seventies, it’s why they made abortion a huge issue, to pull in those Christian voters who stayed out of politics.Report
<i."when in fact that was one of the major pushes of the right since the seventies, it’s why they made abortion a huge issue, to pull in those Christian voters who stayed out of politics"
Heh. Heh he ha ha hah ha ha! AH HA HA (etc.)Report
Here’s where Pinky pretends he knows something that proves me wrong but doesn’t actually.
The history of Christian voting patterns is actually pretty well documented, how abortion (and, slightly before that, segregation) drew out a lot of Christians who had peviously considered themselves not part of politics and had not voted at all. This isn’t actually up for debate, it’s very well documented, and I am someone who was actually inside the very tail end of that and knows the actual Christian philosophy. My mother literally has a stitching on her wall that says ‘In the world, not of it’, even though she isn’t really in that group, but, again, I don’t think that group really exists anymore. But it sure as hell did.
About the only thing you can debate is whether or not the Republicans hyper focus on abortion was honest or not… Except you can’t really do that, cuz we actually have a pretty clear history of the start of the incredibly cynical origins of the pro-life movement, and how it sort of replaced the previous attempt ‘pro-segregation movement’ which also tried to appeal to the same people but didn’t as much and started faltering by the ’70s. There are plenty of people who do honestly believe in the pro-life movement, but we know how it started.
And I have paid attention to the conman Ralph Reed my entire life. (In fact, I’ve probably mentioned his name in my comments more on this site than everyone else put together)Report
You’re skimming the surface though. For one thing, the story doesn’t make sense unless you look at the interplay between the various Christian denominations. Even within Catholicism, there was a demographic shift from the staid Irish and German to the more emotional Hispanic culture. The abortion issue and other aspects of sexual morality were where the mainstream Protestant denominations destroyed themselves and the Evangelical movement took off.
There was plenty of regional difference as well. The pro-life activism in the South drew from the segregationists, although you have to include the school prayer fight and the question of gay teachers if you want to make sense of that. The pro-lifers up North were likely to have been civil rights activists. A lot of the pro-life movement was from black preachers, back before the big sort.
I think the “in the world but not of the world” impulse you’re talking about was found more in the Northeast among low-church denominations.
You were right to ask the question of whether the movement was sincere. I think your assumption of cynicism was what made me laugh the most at your initial comment. I’m sure there was some cynicism, or at least deliberation, among a few of the people who turned conservatism into a money-making machine. But it wasn’t astroturf – that costs money, rather than making money. It was organic among the population, and the availability of ultrasounds just made it moreso. And while the pro-life and political conservative movements aren’t contradictory, they’re not necessarily the same thing.Report