What will the GOP presidential nominating battle tell us about the Conservative Evangelical Christian Bloc?

Today's Monmouth University poll of likely Iowa Republican caucus voters may be indicative of an eventual fissure within the base GOP coalition -- at least in Iowa. And it may eventually tell us something significant about the Conservative Evangelical Christian voting bloc. Since 1988, Conservative Evangelicals have been a major voting bloc in the Iowa Republican caucuses. In every contested caucus since 1988, the candidate of the Conservative Evangelicals came in second (Pat Robertson in 1988 with 25%; Pat Buchanan in 1996 with 23%), first (George W. Bush in 2000 with 41%; Mike Huckabee in 2008 with 34%), or essentially tied for first (Rick Santorum in 2012 with 25%). With the emergence of the Tea Party, the Republican Party has lurched even farther right-ward.

What is unclear is the degree to which Conservative Evangelicals and Tea Party adherents overlap. While it seems that both groups generally share the same substantive positions on most issues, there is a difference of emphasis. The Conservative Evangelicals place more emphasis on theologically-based social issues, principally opposition to reproductive and gay rights. The Tea Party people place more emphasis on general hostility to the federal government, principally centered around the belief that any federal governmental activity will make their lives worse, not better.

So now we see Donald Trump channeling the Tea Party approach and getting 23% support, and Ben Carson saying (and apparently believing) all the things on social issues that the Conservative Evangelicals espouse and also getting 23% support. Ted Cruz, who is trying to stress both sets of issues, gets 9%; and Carly Fiorina, who seems to stress the general hostility to the public sector approach to politics, gets 10%. Trump is second choice of 10%, Carson of 12%, Cruz of 13%, Fiorina of 8%. These four lead the poll. The poll does not provide a breakdown of the first-place choices of the second-place respondents. Such a breakdown would be instructive. But it is interesting that among Evangelicals, 29% favor Carson, while 23% favor Trump, and among non-Evangelical voters, 24% favor Trump, while 18% favor Carson.

Since, at least at the moment, Trump is running well ahead of the field nationally, a big question is what portion of the Conservative Evangelicals, at the end of the day, would feel comfortable with the thrice-married, big-money hedonist Trump. (OK, I am loading the question by this characterization of Trump, but I suspect that much, maybe most, of the Conservative Evangelical bloc will see him this way, if they really believe what they say about what they want in a national leader.)

The pundits seem to think that, down the road, the big battle will be between Trump and a yet-to-be determined "establishment" candidate. But given the abysmal numbers for the so-called establishment candidates (Walker, Bush, Rubio, and Kasich, who poll at 7%, 5%, 4%, and 4%, respectively, in Iowa), it may well be that if there is a final face-off (or even sooner, in Iowa), it will be between Trump and an aggressively right-wing theological candidate. And if it is, we will find out how much of the Conservative Evangelical bloc's public policy views are really based on theology; while Conservative Evangelicals are big on repentance for past sins, Trump clearly (and proudly) does not repent for anything. But the more Conservative Evangelicals flock to Trump, the more it will be fair to conclude that their religiosity is really a cover for more deep-seated resentments having little or nothing to do with religion.

Judge Williams' role on Maryland's anti-gerrymandering commission bears watching

The Commonwealth of Virginia is under a court order to undo its gerrymandered Congressional Districts that unfairly favor Republicans.  And Maryland’s Republican Governor, Larry Hogan, is appointing a commission to address our state’s gerrymandering in favor of Democrats.  I agree with the Washington Post Editorial Board that we need to use this possibly bi-partisan moment to address gerrymandering, which increasingly distorts the democratic process.

However, I am a little nervous about the person Governor Hogan appointed to be the Democratic Co-Chair of his Commission, retired federal judge Alexander Williams.

It may be unfair to evaluate Judge Williams based on a single case, but I do think it worth noting that in 2005, he issued a 23-page temporary restraining order preventing the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) from implementing some revisions to its secondary school health education curriculum to include some basic, medically-accurate discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.  Judge Williams’ decision was based on factually incorrect characterizations of what was in the curriculum (he falsely stated that the curriculum to be taught to the students included value judgments on the views of particular religious denominations); and a grossly-incorrect statement of law, in which he asserted that public school health curriculum constituted a public forum in which there could be no discrimination based on viewpoint, and that, therefore, any mention of sexual orientation had to include the notion (discredited by every mainstream American medical and mental health professional association) that “reparative” or “conversion” therapies could be warranted and effective in helping people change their sexual orientation. 

To avoid further litigation, MCPS agreed to cancel its curriculum revisions and start over.  In 2007, a new curriculum was offered; it contained some very good material, but, apparently in order to avoid another lawsuit, omitted some key material supported by the mainstream medical and mental health associations and further mandated that teachers could not say anything that was not, verbatim, in the curriculum.  Right wing groups sued anyway, this time in state, rather than federal, fora.  The State Board of Education, without a single dissent, rejected the same sort of arguments adopted by Judge Williams in 2005, and rejected the notion that MCPS was constitutionally barred from discussing what the mainstream health care community had concluded about sexual orientation without providing the arguments of the “other side.”  In early 2008, the Montgomery County Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the State Board.  Due to skittishness on the part of some in the school system, however, it took until 2014 for MCPS to improve the curriculum to include all the needed information (including the affirmative statements that being gay is not an illness and that the mainstream health community rejects “reparative therapy”) and to allow teachers to teach without being absolutely confined to a tight script.  Click here.  Thus, Judge Williams’ 2005 decision delayed for nearly a decade the implementation of a fully adequate secondary school health education curriculum in Montgomery County.

Hopefully, Judge Williams’ 2005 decision was an aberration.  If it was not, then the bi-partisan/non-partisan nature of the anti-gerrymandering effort could be in jeopardy.

(Full disclosure:  In 2003-05, I was Chair of the MCPS Board of Education's Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development, the Committee that advised the Board on the curriculum revisions.  Subsequently, in my role as Advocacy Chair of the Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG (2006-present), I worked to secure needed improvements in the health education curriculum.) 

Why Donald Trump, even if opposed by most Republicans, should be viewed as the favorite to secure the GOP nomination

So now Donald Trump, fresh from polling showing that he is still well ahead of his closest competitor, now tells the world that he will not run as a third-party candidate so long as he is treated "fairly."  He would not say what "fairly" means, but asserts that HE will know.

What does that portend for the Republican Party?  Well, if Trump has now shown that he can maintain pluralities everywhere, and there may well be nothing that he could say or do that would diminish his position, the Republican Party may be stuck with him because of the rules the Party has established for the selection of delegates.  Here is why:

There will be 2,470 voting delegates at the Convention -- or 1,236 to win the nomination.  As of now, 49% of those delegates will be selected before March 15 -- the time period during which the states MUST use a proportional formula for delegate allocation.  So let's say that Trump secures 25% of those delegates -- and is running in "first place."  In Trump World (and, to be honest about it, in Media World) that would mean he is "winning" even if most of the other 75% desperately wants someone else.   So on March 14, let's say he has 302 delegates (25% of the total).  He would need to get 934 of the remaining1,262 delegates to win.  Sounds daunting, no?

Well, it is not daunting at all, under the present rules.  The Republican National Committee allows states parties selecting their delegates beginning on March 15 to use a winner-take-all approach:  In other words, whoever come in first, regardless of the percentage of votes secured, gets ALL the delegates.  I don't know what the state parties have decided so far, but I suspect most or all have adopted a winner-take-all approach, because the party leaders generally want the process to be wrapped up early so that they can plan for the general election.

So even if a number of candidates drop out, it is not at all inconceivable that Trump will continue to role up pluralities; except that from March 15 onward, a 25% plurality translates to 100% of the delegates.  If Trump gets pluralities in states with 74% of the remaining delegates, he wins the nomination.

Of course, the state parties could easily deprive Trump of such a triumphant march to the nomination by changing their rules to mandate proportional representation (as is required in the pre-March 15 states).  Indeed, such an approach certainly would be more democratic.  But, in Trump World, that would be "unfair" because he would be deprived of so many delegates even though he is "winning" -- i.e., coming in first in a multi-candidate field.  If he loses the nomination because he is not treated "fairly," he has made it clear he will run as a third-party candidate, thus probably assuring a Democratic Party victory in November.  So the party leaders likely will not change their formulas.

Now if, by Spring, there is a one-on-one matchup with Trump, one would think that Trump would lose.  But who would that one candidate be?  Is there any party leadership that could clear out the field for a one-on-one matchup?  It is hard to see, for example, the Koch Brothers being able to push out Jeb Bush in favor of Scott Walker; and it is hard to see Scott Walker bowing out in favor of Bush.

There are many reasons I am glad I am not a Republican.  This is one more.

Donald Trump admits that he lies to get what he wants

The most striking thing about Donald Trump's performance today on ABC's This Week was his admission that he lies to get what he wants.

Trump was confronted by Jonathan Karl with his past praise of, for example, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and Rick Perry -- three fellow presidential candidates whom he has recently savaged. Trump seemed not at all troubled by Karl's inquiry, and quickly gave this explanation:

"It's a very simple answer to that. I was a business man all my life. I've made a tremendous fortune. I had to deal with politicians and I would contribute to them and I would deal with them and certainly I'm not going to say bad things about people because I needed their support to get projects done. I needed their support for lots of things or I may have needed their support, put it another way. 

"I mean, you're not going to say horrible things and then go in a year later and say listen, can I have your support for this project or this development or this business. So I say nice about almost everybody and I contributed to people because I was a smart business man. I've built a tremendous company. And I did that based on relationships. 

"Now I'm no longer a business man. Now I'm somebody that wants to make our country great." (Transcript and video)

As is typical, even when a broadcast "journalist" asks a good question, the follow-up is lacking. First, Trump's statement that "I'm no longer a business man." Oh? If true, that would be a big story. Has Trump retired from business? Has he sold off his real estate and other holdings? Or at least the fig leaf of a blind trust? But Karl did not pursue that at all. Why not? Did Karl even listen to the answer? Or is he so accustomed to BS from Trump that he just lets it go? 

But even more importantly, Trump -- whose self-proclaimed passion in life has always been to become extraordinary rich, making huge amounts of money in the most visible ways -- admitted that he repeatedly lied about major political figures in order to advance his business interests. Even assuming this passion has been replaced by a passion to become President of the United States and "make our country great," why would he not now lie to the voters in order to reach his new goals?Karl could have asked this obvious follow-up question, but, again, did not. 

I certainly hope that those with access to the airwaves will point out Trump's admitted propensity to lie in order to get what he wants.