Oklahoma may very well be the only place in America where Barack Obama’s candidacy will hurt local Democrats. We are teetering on the very edge of a Republican takeover of the State Senate, and we’re still down a handful of seats in the State House. Even though Democrats outnumber Republicans in this state by 221,881 registered voters, we haven’t picked Democratic presidential electors since Nixon.
Opinion polls show Obama down about 30 points to John McCain. If Republican legislative candidates were able to convince their voters to mark a straight-party ticket, we could be looking at a huge blowout.
In other conservative states like Mississippi, North Carolina and West Virginia, Democrats currently have a strong hold on the legislatures. The one thing those states have in common is a spread of only 10 points between the presidential candidates. Even if Obama were to have a down-ticket drag on local Democratic politics, the legislatures would be relatively safe in Democratic hands.
Oklahoma is one of those odd Southern states that still elect Democrats on the local level. It’s almost as if someone forgot to tell them Southern Democrats started switching parties in the ’60s. Maintaining a Democratic hold on legislative and local positions will reveal how well Oklahoma Democrats are able to distance ourselves from liberal Coastal Democrats, while still staying true to our roots in social justice and progressive, agrarian economics.
October 28, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I’ve been worried about the same thing. I’m much less worried about national politics than I am local politics. I think we should get rid of the straight party voting option in this state.
October 30, 2008 at 9:09 pm
What are progressive, agrarian economics?
October 30, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Well if I had to define it, it would probably go something like this:
Utilizing our God-given natural resources to fulfill our needs, whether it be energy, food or feed, we need to make sure everything is being used for the betterment of society. Futhermore, individual and family farmers must be protected in lean times, and corporate farming should not be subsidized – especially in boom times.
My use of the phrase, however, isn’t the typical way of using “agrarian.” I’m not talking about seeds and leaves. I’m talking about understanding and appreciating the common citizen, stripped of their faults and desires. To this, we owe our dedication of help when he or she faces trouble, and what better blind arbiter of aid is a bureaucracy? If we can tool it so it captures the greatest and most fair number of citizens, then the government can be quite a blessing.
That is a digression, though. Take it or leave it. Thanks for the question.
October 31, 2008 at 8:58 am
I would encourage you to read the Catholic Church teaching on the importance of agrarian economics. I would disagree with your conclusion that a bureaucracy is the best arbiter of aid and after reading more about what the Church teaches on this will understand why.
If you haven’t read it I would start here with the allocution of Pius XII to a convention of farmers. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/POPRURAL.HTM
October 31, 2008 at 9:22 am
The following is from a letter of Dorothy Day’s.
We cannot conclude without mentioning that the very best charitable organization would not suffice of itself alone to assist those in need. Personal action must intervene, full of solicitude, anxious to overcome the distance between helper and helped, drawing near to the poor because he is Christ’s brother and our own.
“The great temptation in an age which calls itself social–when besides the Church, the state, the municipality and other public bodies devote themselves so much to social problems–is that when the poor man knocks on the door, people, even believers will just send him away to an agency or social center, to an organization, thinking that their personal obligation has been sufficiently fulfilled by their contributions in taxes or voluntary gifts to those institutions.
“Undoubtedly the poor man will receive your help that way but often he counts also on yourselves, at least on your words of kindness and comfort. Your charity ought to resemble God’s, Who came in person to bring His help.
“These considerations encourage us to call on your personal collaboration. The poor, those whom life has rudely reduced to straightened circumstances, the unfortunate of every kind, await it. In so far as it depends on you, strive that none shall say any more, as once did the man in the Gospel who had been infirm for 38 years: ‘Lord, I have no one.