Column: New form of Christian civic engagement

Three decades ago, the evangelical faithful was galvanized by public debates over abortion, the size of the federal government, the future of the traditional family, and religious liberty. Many responded by following divisive leaders into the culture wars with the promise that voting for "moral" leadership would end abortion, protect traditional marriage and put our country on the right track.

By Guy Lyons

The new wave: Students pray together at a conference in New Mexico.

By Guy Lyons

The new wave: Students pray together at a conference in New Mexico.

On Religion
Faith. Religion. Spirituality. Meaning. In our ever-shrinking world, the tentacles of religion touch everything from governmental policy to individual morality to our basic social constructs. It affects the lives of people of great faith — or no faith at all. This series of weekly columns — launched in 2005 — seeks to illuminate the national conversation.

How did that work? Not so well, it turns out. Today, abortion remains legal, divisions over same sex rights linger and we're still debating religious liberty. The federal government continues to expand, the economy is struggling and millions of Americans divorce each year. Christian Millennials are now coming of age and recognizing the flawed strategies and broken agendas embraced by their forebears. They've seen how the religious right (and the religious left, for that matter) has used the Bible as a tool to gain political power and reduced the Christian community to little more than a voting bloc — and they are forging a different path.

"We are seeing head-snapping generational change," notes conservative columnist Michael Gerson. "The model of social engagement of the religious right is increasingly exhausted."

Thank God. A distinctive way of being Christian in the public square — a softer, less partisan way — is emerging. And this cultural change could be the very thing our faith needs to survive.

Shifting priorities

Three primary shifts are occurring:

•From partisan to independent. Christians of yesteryear saw the two-party political system as an indispensable mechanism for promoting their values, but young Christians recognize the limitations and pitfalls of partisan politics.

For example, a 2001 study of young evangelicals by Pew Research Center found that 55% were self-described Republicans. When the study was repeated in 2007, only 40% remained in that category. Only one-fifth of the group who left the Republican Party migrated to the Democratic Party. The rest now describe themselves as "independents" or "unaffiliated."

Last month, at the Q Conference, a gathering of more than 700 young Christian leaders in Washington, a participant survey found that 61% of participants claim they don't affiliate with either the right or left.

•From a narrow agenda to a broader one. An earmark of the culture wars was a tightly defined agenda, focused almost exclusively on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and, occasionally, religious liberty. There is no longer a strict hierarchy of arrangement in the minds of the emerging faithful, but rather a broad range of issues to which Christians must attend.

I've spoken with hundreds of young Christians, and one of the common denominators I encountered was the wide array of issues that enlivened them — caring for the environment, protecting the poor, waging peace, advocating for immigrants and, yes, protecting the unborn.

•From divisive rhetoric to civil dialogue. Americans in general are weary of the reactionary, angry, polemical language that stymies progress and the common good. Two-thirds of Americans believe we have a major problem with civility. More than seven in 10 agree that social behaviors are ruder than in the past.

Abandoning coarseness

Christians are awakening to the ways in which our cultural coarseness has affected their own community. They've heard their leaders resort to extreme rhetoric, insults and name-calling, whereby those who disagree with Christians are accused of being unpatriotic, pagans, baby-killers and anti-God. They recognize that this trend has led to 70% of non-Christians ages 16 to 29 saying Christians are "insensitive to others," according to the Barna Institute.

So Christians increasingly long for a substantive change in tone. This desire has led to efforts such as conservative Christian and Romney adviser Mark DeMoss' Civility Project and liberal Christian Jim Wallis' Civility Covenant, which was signed by more than 100 Christian leaders and denominational heads. Today's Christians are not seeking ways to "divide and conquer" but to "partner and achieve." Unafraid to collaborate with those they may disagree with on other issues, young Christians and their leaders are showing up throughout the public square and working on common-ground agendas.

One can only imagine how Christian culture warriors such as Richard Land, Tony Perkins and James Dobson must feel as these shifts gain traction and their power wanes. In response, some have decried the shift while others deny it is even occurring.

As Andrew Sullivan noted in a recent Newsweek cover story, organized religion is in decline, and Christians exercise far less influence over society than even a decade ago. As Sullivan and others rightly argue, this trend is due, in part, to Christians' partisan, divisive and uncivil engagement in the public square. So I say bring on this new brand of political engagement. Because crucifying the culture war model could be the only hope for resurrecting American Christianity in a new century.

Jonathan Merritt is author of A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars. He has published more than 350 articles in outlets such as USA TODAY, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Washington Postand CNN.com.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Watergate figure, Christian leader Charles Colson dies

WASHINGTON (AP) – He was described as the "evil genius" of the Nixon administration, and spent the better part of a year in prison for a Watergate-related conviction. His proclamations following his release that he was a new man, redeemed by his religious faith, were met with more than skepticism by those angered at the abuses he had perpetrated as one of Nixon's hatchet men.

By Robert Hanashiro, USA TODAY

Chuck Colson at Richard Nixon's funeral in 1994.

By Robert Hanashiro, USA TODAY

Chuck Colson at Richard Nixon's funeral in 1994.

But Charles "Chuck" Colson spent the next 35 years steadfast in his efforts to evangelize to a part of society scorned just as he was. And he became known perhaps just as much for his efforts to minister to prison inmates as for his infamy with Watergate.

Colson died Saturday at age 80. His death was confirmed by Jim Liske, chief executive of the Lansdowne, Va.-based Prison Fellowship Ministries that Colson founded. Liske said the preliminary cause of death was complications from brain surgery Colson had at the end of March. He underwent the surgery to remove a clot after becoming ill March 30 while speaking at a conference.

Colson once famously said he'd walk over his grandmother to get the president elected to a second term. In 1972 The Washington Post called him "one of the most powerful presidential aides, variously described as a troubleshooter and as a 'master of dirty tricks.'"

"I shudder to think of what I'd been if I had not gone to prison," Colson said in 1993. "Lying on the rotten floor of a cell, you know it's not prosperity or pleasure that's important, but the maturing of the soul."

He helped run the Committee to Re-elect the President when it set up an effort to gather intelligence on the Democratic Party. The arrest of CREEP's security director, James W. McCord, and four other men burglarizing the Democratic National Committee offices in 1972 set off the scandal that led to Nixon's resignation in August 1974.

But it was actions that preceded the actual Watergate break-in that resulted in Colson's criminal conviction. Colson pleaded guilty to efforts to discredit Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg. It was Ellsberg who had leaked the secret Defense Department study of Vietnam that became known as the Pentagon Papers.

The efforts to discredit Ellsberg included use of Nixon's plumbers — a covert group established to investigate White House leaks — in 1971 to break into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist to look for information that could discredit Ellsberg's anti-war efforts.

The Ellsberg burglary was revealed during the course of the Watergate investigation and became an element in the ongoing scandal. Colson pleaded guilty in 1974 to obstruction of justice in connection with attempts to discredit Ellsberg, though charges were dropped that Colson actually played a role in the burglary of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Charges related to the actual Watergate burglary and cover-up were also dropped. He served seven months in prison.

Before Colson went to prison he became a born-again Christian, but critics said his post-scandal redemption was a ploy to get his sentence reduced. The Boston Globe wrote in 1973, "If Mr. Colson can repent of his sins, there just has to be hope for everyone."

Ellsberg, for his part, said in an interview that Colson never apologized to him and did not respond to several efforts Ellsberg made over the years to get in touch with him. Ellsberg said he still believes that Colson's guilty plea was not a matter of contrition so much as an effort to head off even more serious allegations that Colson had sought to hire thugs to administer a beating against Ellsberg — an allegation that Colson states in his book was believed by prosecutors despite his denial.

"I have no reason to doubt his evangelism," Ellsberg said of Colson. "But I don't think he felt any kind of regret" for what he had done, except remorse that he had been ineffective and got caught.

Colson stayed with his faith after Watergate and went on to win praise — including the prestigious Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion — for his efforts to use it to help others. Colson later called going to prison a "great blessing."

He created the Prison Fellowship Ministries in 1976 to minister to prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families. It runs work-release programs, marriage seminars and classes to help prisoners after they get out. An international offshoot established chapters around the world.

"You can't leave a person in a steel cage and expect something good to come out of him when he is released," Colson said in 2001.

Michael Cromartie, director of the Evangelical Studies Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, worked with Colson at Prison Fellowship Ministries. He said he's certain Colson's faith was genuine.

"Before he went off to prison he had a born again evangelical experience, a conversion experience," he said. It produced guffaws in official Washington, Cromartie said, but Colson demonstrated he was serious.

When Colson emerged from prison, "he had a lot of offers to do other things that would have made him a lot of money", but he wanted to serve people who had been "forgotten" in society, Cromartie said.

"I think if he's going to be remembered for anything, he's going to be remembered as a person who had a complete turnaround in his life," he said.

While faith was a large part of Colson's message, he also tackled such topics as prison overpopulation and criticized the death penalty, though he thought it could be justified in rare cases. He said those convicted of nonviolent crimes should be put on community-service projects instead of being locked up.

He wrote more than 20 books, including Born Again: What Really Happened to the White House Hatchet Man, which was turned into a movie.

"(W)ho was I to moralize, to preach to others?" Colson wrote. "I'd botched it, was one of those who helped bring on Watergate and was in prison to prove it. Yet maybe that very fact … could give me some insights that would help others."

Royalties from all his books have gone to his ministry program, as did the $1 million Templeton prize, which he won in 1993.

Colson also wrote a syndicated column, and started his daily radio feature, BreakPoint, which airs on more than 1,000 radio networks, according to the PFM Web site.

While he admitted he'd been wrong to do so much of Nixon's dirty work, he remained embittered at one of the sources who'd exposed the wrongdoing. In 2005, when it was revealed that Mark Felt was the infamous "Deep Throat" responsible for the fall of the Nixon administration, Colson was disgusted, having worked so closely with Felt. "He goes out of his life on a very sour note, not as a hero," Colson said.

Colson, a Boston native earned his bachelor's degree from Brown University in 1953 and served as a captain in the Marine Corps from 1953 to 1955. In 1959, he received his doctorate with honors from George Washington University.

He spent several years as an administrative assistant to Massachusetts Sen. Leverett Saltonstall. Nixon made him special counsel in November 1969.

In the mid-1990s Colson teamed up with the Rev. Richard Neuhaus to write Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, calling for Catholics and evangelicals to unite and accept each other as Christians.

In February 2005, Colson was named one of Time magazine's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America."

Time commended Colson for helping to define compassionate conservatism through his campaign for humane prison conditions and called him one of "evangelicalism's more thoughtful public voices."

"After decades of relative abstention, Colson is back in power politics," Time wrote.

Mark Earley, a former Virginia attorney general who became president and chief executive officer of Prison Fellowship Ministries after his failed gubernatorial run in 2001, said the influence of Colson's work in his ministry is a different kind of power from what he had as Nixon's special counsel.

"Yet, it wasn't until he lost that power, what most people would call real 'power,' that Chuck began to make a real difference and exercise the only kind of influence that really matters," Earley said on BreakPoint.

"Prison Fellowship is possible only because its founder, Chuck Colson, was forced to personally identify with those people who hold a special place in God's heart: prisoners and their families."

In October 2000, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush restored Colson's civil rights, allowing him to vote, sit on a jury, run for office and practice law. Colson had a home in Naples, Fla., and Bush called him "a great guy … a great Floridian."

Ultimately, Colson credited the Watergate scandal with enriching his life.

God "used that experience — Watergate — to raise up a ministry that is reaching hundreds of thousands of people," Colson said in the late 1990s. "So I'm probably one of the few guys around that's saying, 'I'm glad for Watergate.'"

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Indiana union bill: Even with Dems AWOL, lawmakers move closer to vote (The Christian Science Monitor)

Chicago – Most Indiana Democrats were absent from the House floor in Indianapolis Friday, the third day of session they skipped to protest a proposed bill they say is harmful to unions.

But their absence Friday did not prevent a House committee from hearing more than five hours of testimony on the bill in question, which would ban negotiations between a union and company if workers are forced to pay fees for representation.

The committee ended the day by voting to send the bill to the House for a full vote, which Republicans say will happen next week. However, a quorum in that chamber is needed for the vote. Actions by Democrats suggest they are not worried about the fines, at $1,000 per day per lawmaker, that they face for not showing up.

RECOMMENDED: Top 5 fastest-growing states 

Republicans will get their vote, but it’s a matter of when, says Brian Vargus, a political scientist at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Democrats are reluctant to give the Republican majority a victory because it may weaken union support.

“Unions are big contributors to the Democrats, and they feel with the decline of unionization, it would solidify Republicans. It simply comes down to that,” Mr. Vargus says.

The area’s diminished role in the steel and automotive industries has resulted in declining membership for Indiana unions. In 2010, the share of workers in Indiana who were unionized was 10.9 percent, lower than the national average of 11.9 percent, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Last year, Indiana’s Republican leadership passed a collective-bargaining law that weakens the negotiating power of public unions in the state. The so-called right-to-work bill being contemplated this session would further clamp down on union activity.

Collective-bargaining legislation has been a bumpier road for neighboring states in the Midwest. For example, although Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) saw his collective-bargaining bill become law, it was not without a major fight that continues today with a recall effort to remove him from office. In Ohio, voters repudiated a collective-bargaining law in November. And in Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) is on record as saying it is not the time to push for such legislation, which he called “divisive” last month.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) and House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) are ignoring the potential backlash because they probably see it as an opportunity “to weaken the Democrats in the state” in an election year, says Vargus. “If they can limit union power and union strength, they will feel it will benefit their candidates,” he says of the state Republican leadership.

Friday’s testimony came from both sides of the issue. Keith Busse, a former chief executive officer of Steel Dynamics in Fort Wayne, Ind., described the bill as a “jobs boon” because it would convince companies outside the state that Indiana is business-friendly and prepared to help create job opportunities.

The NFL Players Association also weighed in, most likely because this year’s Super Bowl is set in Indianapolis on Feb. 5. In a statement, the organization, which is based in Washington D.C., criticized the legislation, calling it “a political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights.” The statement added, “it’s the wrong priority for Indiana.”

Democrats say they will not return for a vote until Republicans agree to hold a series of public hearings around the state to justify the bill’s passage to voters. Republicans say they will probably start enforcing the $1,000 penalty next week.

That threat has already been enough for three Democrats to show up since Wednesday, which was the first day of the session. One of those Democrats, Vanessa Summers of Indianapolis, told reporters Thursday that she “cannot stand the fine” because she is a single mother with a son in college.

“I’m on the right side of history. So whatever happens is going to bless me,” Representative Summers said.

Online fundraising efforts via ActBlue, a Democratic political-action committee, launched Friday to help offset costs for the Indiana Democrats still staying away.

RECOMMENDED: Top 5 fastest-growing states 

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

Indiana braces for Wisconsin-style showdown over union bill - again (The Christian Science Monitor)

Chicago – Democrats in Indiana are replaying a scene from last year by refusing to allow the state’s House to come to session and vote on a controversial bill that they say will weaken unions.

The Indiana House returned Wednesday for a 10-week session. On the agenda: a so-called right-to-work bill that would ban negotiations between a union and company if workers are forced to pay fees for representation.

Democrats did not show up for the legislative session and instead remained in private meetings, which prevented the Republican majority from having a quorum to start the session. Indiana law is written so a quorum is needed for every vote, whether or not it involves spending money.

RECOMMENDED: Top 5 fastest-growing states

Democrats are hesitant to call their actions a walkout, a term that was last year when the same legislative proposal prompted the same lawmakers to flee to Illinois for five weeks. They returned once Republicans removed the bill from a vote in the 2011 legislative session.

This time around, Democrats will not return until Republicans agree to hold public hearings around the state, says minority leader Pat Bauer of South Bend. “It’s a filibuster until we can get the truth. For now, it’s about the bill,” Representative Bauer told reporters Wednesday.

Bauer said that while their actions are indefinite, he and his colleagues have no intention of exiting the state.

How long they stay away is up to the public, says Brian Vargus, a political scientist at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“You can’t tell exactly how far [the Democrats] will go until you see more of the public reaction to them not showing up again,” Mr. Vargus says. “It’s impossible if it comes to any kind of vote. The only hope they have is if it goes before the public.”

Republicans are promoting the right-to-work bill as a job creator that will drive businesses to the state for a business-friendly environment. They also say the bill gives workers a choice on whether they want to commit to union dues.

Democrats see the bill as a backhanded way to weaken unions. In a statement Wednesday, Bauer said the current legislation package proposed by Republicans is staked on “an anti-paycheck, anti-job bill that will lower wages, cut pensions and benefits, and increase workplace deaths.”

If the right-to-work bill does become law, Indiana would become the 23rd state with such legislation – though it would be the first in America’s traditional manufacturing belt. The last state to adopt this kind of rule was Oklahoma in 2001.

Republicans say that the Democrats’ actions are stalling votes on other important issues including education, a statewide smoking ban, a phaseout of the state’s inheritance tax, and a $1.3 billion overhaul of mass transit in central Indiana.

The Democrats’ filibuster is a “childish tactic,” Rob Beiswenger, executive director of the Indiana Right to Work Committee, told a local television station Wednesday. “Not only are [Democrats] stopping the right-to-work bill; they are stopping every single bill.”

For each day in session that Democrats miss, they face a $1,000 fine per lawmaker – a penalty that became law last year following that exodus. Republicans have yet to say if they will issue the fines.

The call by Democrats to hold public meetings is not unwarranted, according to a poll conducted this past November by Ball State University’s Bowen Center for Public Affairs in Muncie, Ind. It found that while 27 percent of Indiana residents support right to work and 24 percent oppose it, 48 percent are undecided.

RECOMMENDED: Top 5 fastest-growing states 

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

Both Dems, GOP pleased: Supreme Court taking up Obama health-care law (The Christian Science Monitor)

There isn’t much these days that can spread unanimity across party lines in Washington. But that’s what happened following the US Supreme Court’s announcement on Monday that it will examine the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care reform law.

The news was greeted across the ideological spectrum as a positive development – but for different reasons.

“We are pleased the court has agreed to hear this case,” Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director, said in a statement. “We know the Affordable Care Act [ACA] is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi echoed the sentiments. “Today’s announcement places the Affordable Care Act before the highest court in our country,” she said. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will find the law constitutional.”

Others are equally confident that the law is unconstitutional, and they’re looking forward to the Supreme Court saying so.

“Throughout the debate, Senate Republicans have argued that this misguided law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American. Most Americans agree,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

“In both public surveys and at the ballot box, Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and I hope the Supreme Court will do the same,â€

“The American people did not support this law when it was rushed through Congress and they do not support it now that they’ve seen what’s in it,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “This government takeover of health care is threatening jobs, increasing costs, and jeopardizing coverage for millions of Americans, and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it.”

Rep. Pete Stark (D) of California had a different take. “I’m looking forward to a Supreme Court ruling that will force Republicans to join Democrats in governing instead of continuing their political grandstanding,” he said.

In announcing that they will take up the issue, the justices set aside an extraordinary 5-1/2 hours for oral argument. They have agreed to examine the ACA’s controversial independent mandate, the requirement that all Americans must purchase a government-approved level of health insurance or pay a penalty.

The court has also agreed to hear an appeal by Florida and 24 other states that the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid is overly coercive of state government, forcing the states to either adopt the federal reforms or lose federal health-care funding.

Beyond the fate of the ACA, the high court’s decision could establish new boundaries for federal power under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

“The Supreme Court has set the stage for the most significant case since Roe v. Wade,” said Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. “Indeed, this litigation implicates the future of the Republic as Roe never did.”

Randy Barnett, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, was among the first legal scholars to raise serious questions about the constitutionality of the health-care reform law. When most other legal analysts scoffed, Professor Barnett argued that the ACA’s individual mandate represented a sizable expansion of federal power.

“Upholding the individual mandate would end the notion that Congress is one of limited and enumerated powers, and fundamentally transform the relationship of Americans to their doctors and their government,” he said in a statement Monday. “It is high time for the high court to strike down this unconstitutional, unworkable, and unpopular law.”

Elizabeth Wydra, general counsel of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington, noted that two highly regarded conservative jurists have voted in lower court cases to uphold the ACA. Conservative members of the high court may follow the same path, she said.

“Observers should note the very real possibility that the tea party’s basic constitutional vision could be rejected by the Supreme Court – particularly its most conservative members,” she said. A high court endorsement of the ACA, Ms. Wydra added, “could deal a devastating blow to tea partiers’ ability to have their constitutional theories taken seriously by the American public in the future.”

Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif., says he’s hopeful the Supreme Court case sparks even more discussion, not less.

“The Supreme Court’s announcement marks an historic opportunity for a nationwide debate over the Constitution and its continued significance in our lives – the kind of debate this nation has not had since the 1930s,” Mr. Sandefur said. “The founding fathers made it clear that they were designing a federal government of limited powers. But since the 1930s, Congress has pushed its authority further and further, and courts have refused to enforce the constitutional limits.”

Sandefur added: “Today’s announcement means the justices will be faced with the question of whether the federal government is still bound by constitutional limits, or whether we will persist in our decades-long habit of ignoring the letter and spirit of our nation’s supreme law.”

Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, offered a different perspective. “I am confident the law will be upheld in its entirety,” she said.

Ms. Tanden called the lawsuits challenging the ACA “nothing more than an attempt to rewrite the Constitution to thwart national solutions to national problems.”

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) said he is confident the high court will invalidate the ACA. “Each day that these cases remain unresolved means that states must spend more time and money to prepare for the expensive and burdensome requirements of the health care law, while uncertainty looms over its constitutionality,” he said.

“Today’s news that the Supreme Court will hear arguments,” the governor said, “is reassuring news that we will soon reach finality on this critically important issue.”

The National Federation of Independent Business is a party to one of the appeals challenging the ACA’s constitutionality. The high court’s decision to hear its case is welcome news, said NFIB president Dan Danner.

“Only 18 months after its passage, the new health care law has been brought to the steps of the Supreme Court,” Mr. Danner said. “The health care law has not lived up to its promise of reducing costs, allowing citizens to keep their coverage or improving a cumbersome system that has long been a burden to small-business owners and employees.”

He added, “The small-business community can now have hope; their voices are going to be heard in the nation’s highest court.”

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

Democrats win in latest Wisconsin recall. Is state a little less red now? (The Christian Science Monitor)

Republicans in Wisconsin’s Senate will retain their razor-edge margin over Democrats in the wake of a special recall election Tuesday.

Voters allowed two Democratic incumbent senators to retain their seats, meaning Republicans have just a one-vote majority in the Senate, 17 to 16. That's a narrower margin than before this month's spate of recall elections. Expectations are that it will push Gov. Scott Walker (R) toward a legislative agenda that holds greater appeal for Democrats or that is handled more sensitively than the so-called “budget repair billâ€

The reshuffling is expected to make it more difficult for the Republican majority to pass controversial legislation such as stricter restrictions on abortion rights or harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

RECOMMENDED: What Wisconsin says about labor unions' clout in America

An earlier recall election, held Aug. 9, dashed Democrats' hopes of seizing control of the Senate, but it did roll over two Republican seats in their favor. For Republicans, that represented a retrenchment from their gains of the 2010 midterm elections, which swept them into power in both houses of state government and the governor's office.

Both Democratic senators up for recall Tuesday managed double-digit victories. With 95 percent of precincts reporting in District 12 by midnight, Sen. Jim Holperin (D) defeated Kim Simac, a tea party organizer, 55 to 45 percent. In the District 22 race, Sen. Bob Wirch (D) defeated Jonathan Steitz, a corporate attorney, 58 percent to 42 percent, with all precincts reporting.

Senator Wirch’s district represents Kenosha and much of the area in southeast Wisconsin close to the Illinois border. Senator Holperin’s district lies in the northernmost area of the state alongside Green Bay.

Two weeks of recall elections gave both parties an opportunity to declare victory.

In holding their majority, Republicans claimed that voters were less than thrilled to recast votes for state senators they fully supported all along. They also said voters rejected the idea that kicking out their Republican senators served as a de facto referendum on Walker’s legislation, which Democrats portrayed as hostile to public-sector unions and the middle class.

For their part, Democrats claimed they succeeded in creating a Senate that will be less of a rubber stamp for Walker's policies. They also said the closer margin will help to give Democrats their voices back just in time for the 2012 national election cycle.

Telling the Associated Press that Tuesday’s recall election “fundamentally changed the face of power in the Wisconsin legislature,” Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate suggested that, “at the end of this historic recall effort, Democrats have the momentum.”

Republicans are casting the recall process as “political games” by embittered Democrats, according to Republican Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald. “Democrats need to start working with the other side of the aisle, not just moving on to their next recall target,” Senator Fitzgerald said in a statement released Tuesday.

That next recall target is decided: Walker. Mr. Tate and other Democratic leaders have already said they plan to begin efforts this summer to remove Walker from office when he becomes eligible for recall in 2012.

However, the public’s appetite is small for another recall election of a state official, even though Walker has lost some support.

Public Policy Polling, a Raleigh, N.C., polling firm that often works for Democrats, reported Monday that 50 percent of Wisconsin voters oppose recalling Walker, with 47 percent in favor. The findings reverse those in May, when 47 percent of voters opposed a Walker recall and 50 percent were in support.

Because Walker’s approval ratings have been sliding, the growing opposition to his recall probably has more to do with voter fatigue about the process itself.

Some 53 percent of voters disapprove of Walker’s performance. If a recall election were to take place between the current governor and former US Sen. Russ Feingold (D), Mr. Feingold would be the preferred choice for 52 percent of voters, compared with 45 percent who would vote to keep Walker in office.

In a statement, Public Policy Polling Dean Debnam said “a Scott Walker recall is still in the realm of possibility,” but added that “Democrats really might need Russ Feingold to run if they want to knock” Walker off the ballot.

Walker may survive a recall if he tailors more bipartisan issues, like job creation, to independent voters. “It will be nearly impossible [for Walker] to win Democratic voters back, but independent voters currently leaning against him probably could be convinced to come back to his side if the next six months are less divisive than the last seven months,” says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

The Republican whom Democrats are expected to cajole and not criticize is state Sen. Dale Schultz, considered the single moderate in his party. Senator Schultz was the only Senate Republican to vote against Walker’s “budget repair bill,” and many Democrats have suggested that his vote is so valuable that he is first in line for any back-room negotiations that may take place once the Senate reconvenes this fall.

Time will tell whether Schultz ultimately serves as a lynchpin for more bipartisanship in the Senate, says Mr. Franklin. He will be sought after by Republicans, too, for potentially persuading moderate Democrats to vote for bills pushed forward by his own party.

“He’s certainly getting a lot of love and attention from a lot of people. Whether or not he’ll fulfill the role Democrats want him to fulfill” is less certain, Franklin says.

In Wisconsin, voters are about evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans, and independents. “All evidence says [Wisconsin] is still a purple state,” says Franklin, which means it is likely to be among the swing states that decide the national election in 2012. “The underlying complexity of the electorate remains fairly closely divided,” he says. With so much hanging on Wisconsin next year, “a cliffhanger is the most likely outcome.”

RECOMMENDED: What Wisconsin says about labor unions' clout in America

View the original article here

Monitor Breakfast Q&A: Rep. Steve Israel (The Christian Science Monitor)

Democratic campaign chief Steve Israel chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is working in the 2012 elections to regain party control of the US House. New Yorkers elected Mr. Israel to Congress in 2000. He was guest speaker at the June 1 Monitor breakfast in Washington. Odds of gaining the 24 seats Democrats need to take control of the House after the 2012 election:

"I can't tell you we can get 24. It is going to be razor close.... The House will be in play, factoring in the uncertainties of redistricting and other challenges and opportunities."

The effect of constitutionally mandated redistricting based on the 2010 Census:

"It is going to be very close to a net zero. Maybe [Republicans] will pick up a couple of seats, maybe [Democrats] will pick up a couple.... Redistricting is not the threat, the huge, existential threat that the Republicans made it out to be."

Future impact of the May 24 special election in New York's heavily Republican 26th Congressional District, won by Democrat Kathleen Hochul amid voter concern about Medicare changes, per the GOP budget plan:

"New York 26 will inform our strategy; it will not be our strategy."

Democratic Party intent to target House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin in 2012, author of the budget plan that would turn Medicare into a voucherlike program:

"As the architect of the Republican plan to terminate Medicare on the one hand, while continuing to fund subsidies for big oil companies on the other, he should be held accountable. Now, Wisconsin has not gone through redistricting [yet], so we will see how the lines are drawn as to the viability."

Plans to target other GOP congressional leaders:

"We are going to target districts not based on whether somebody is a GOP leader, but based on the situation on the ground, based on have they cast a voting record that is out of touch, out of tune with their district."

Why Democrats launched two fundraising groups to take unlimited donations, akin to similar groups founded by Karl Rove on the Republican side:

"I don't believe in unilateral disarmament."

Hopes for gaining House seats in President Obama's home state:

"Illinois and ... the suburbs of Chicago have always been a center of gravity in our plans to retake a House majority."

View the original article here

GOP quandary: Is a vote to eliminate tax breaks actually a tax hike? (The Christian Science Monitor)

An expected Senate vote on ethanol subsidies Tuesday represents a test of a larger issue: Can Republicans embrace a view of tax loopholes that finds common ground with Democrats?

If so, that shared viewpoint could help build broader consensus on fiscal reforms designed to bring down federal budget deficits over time. If not, getting to a bipartisan "yes" on any major deficit-reduction would be much harder.

The point at issue goes beyond ethanol and the debate over whether corporations should reap a tax credit for putting the corn-based fuel into US gasoline. The deeper issue is a philosophical one: If Congress takes away a tax subsidy, should that count as a tax hike?

IN PICTURES: Why America won't raise taxes

Many Republicans argue that any move that allows more tax revenue to arrive at the US Treasury is a tax increase. Killing the ethanol subsidy is a great idea, many say, but it should be done in a "revenue-neutral" manner, with new tax cuts designed to offset the change.

Others in Congress – including some Republicans – argue that rolling back this kind of spending is a good thing, even if the resulting boost to federal revenues is not offset by new tax cuts.

The poster children of this great tax debate are antitax lobbyist Grover Norquist and Sen. Tom Coburn (R) of Oklahoma.

Mr. Norquist, of the lobbying group Americans for Tax Reform, is pushing Republicans not to allow any new tax revenue to arrive in Washington. The rationale: The basic problem in the federal budget is too much spending, not too little taxes. And if more revenue flows in, Congress will spend it.

Senator Coburn is no lover of high taxes, but he’s backing a bill that would phase out the ethanol subsidies, and thus allow federal tax revenues to rise.

The ethanol vote is just one battle in a much larger budget war: Will fiscal discipline eventually be achieved by spending cuts, tax hikes, or a mix of both. Or not at all.

Currently, federal spending is running at historic highs, with only about 60 cents of tax revenue arriving for every dollar of spending.

But it will be very hard to fix America's long-term fiscal imbalances without a bipartisan deal. Democrats are wary of signing off on any plan to close the whole budget gap through spending cuts, as many Republicans would like to do.

If Republicans move toward the Coburn view and away from Norquist, it could help create conditions for a possible compromise, along the lines of a package proposed by President Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission last year.

That commission called for stabilizing the nation's debt over the next decade, with roughly $4 trillion worth of reductions in projected deficits. The plan included roughly $1 dollar in new tax revenue for every $2 in spending cuts.

Public opinion polls show a public that is not enamored of the budget policies of either party. American voters are willing to see some of both spending cuts and tax hikes as part of an effort to put the nation on sound footing for the future, a number of polls have found, including one new one by the Pew Research Center.

While the two parties have different opinions on economic policy and the size of government, leaders in both parties agree on the to cut spending. They also agree in general on the need to streamline the tax code.

That points to the elimination of tax breaks as a potential bipartisan solution.

"It seems like both sides want to do that," says Diane Lim Rogers, chief economist at the Concord Coalition, a group that supports controlling the national debt. "The big difference is the Republicans are stuck with this no new taxes pledge, the Grover Norquist pledge."

Such choices aren't easy for either side to make. But the alternative may be protracted gridlock – and the risk that the rising public debt sparks a crisis of confidence among investors.

The danger is that every year "our interest payments grow, the risk of a crisis grows," says Maya MacGuineas, who heads the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

In the recent Pew poll, roughly three-quarters of Americans say the budget deficit is a major problem that the country must address now. In addition to cutting spending, a sizable majority say they would support reducing the deficit by raising taxes on high-income Americans and eliminating tax breaks for large corporations.

IN PICTURES: Why America won't raise taxes

View the original article here

To DNC's Wasserman Shultz, Republicans' record is 'antiwoman' (The Christian Science Monitor)

Democratic Party chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz took charge of the Democratic National Committee in May. In 1992, at age 26, she became the youngest woman ever elected to the Florida House. In 2004, she became the first Jewish congress-woman elected from her state. She was the guest speaker at the May 26 Monitor breakfast in Washington, D.C.

Whether President Obama permanently damaged his standing with Israel's supporters by suggesting peace negotiations be based on Israel's 1967 borders with adjustments:

"To suggest that the president did significant damage to his support in the Jewish community is a gross overstatement."

RELATED: President Obama in Afghanistan

Partisan elements in Middle East policy:

"We need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue.... Unfortunately, I think there are organizations that claim to be pro-Israel that are partisan first and pro-Israel second.... The way the Republican Jewish Coalition has conducted itself is they put their Republicanism in front of their pro-Israel stance."

youtube

Whether the US withdrawal from Afghanistan will be fast and deep enough to satisfy the left wing of the Democratic Party:

"I am not concerned at all.... If you asked constituents like mine if they would like to see us get out of Afghanistan, they would say yes.... So far, I have seen the voters being willing to give his [Mr. Obama's] plan an opportunity to work.... I don't see any indication that [the president] would draw a primary challenge over it."

The Republican Party's approach to women:

"Their third most important priority, by indication of it being HR3, was getting rid of ... Planned Parenthood funding [and] redefining rape so that you could not get access to an abortion paid with federal funds unless you were forcibly raped, so statutory rape did not count, date rape didn't count.... So if you look on balance at their entire record, their record is antiwoman. Their record is a war on women, and it is a priority for them."

Democratic support for the auto industry:

"You've got the Big Three automakers who are profitable for the first time since 2004 ... and the loans being paid back by Chrysler, by GM.... If it were up to the candidates running for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars. They would have let the automobile industry in America go down the tubes."

Made in America:

"We need to focus on making it in America again. And there are multiple meanings to that. [Possible GOP presidential candidates] Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman ... I am concerned about their commitment to American exceptionalism."

RECOMMENDED: Election 101: Tim Pawlenty as 'everyman's' candidate? Ten points about who he is.

youtube

View the original article here

To DNC's Wasserman Shultz, Republicans' record is 'antiwoman' (The Christian Science Monitor)

Democratic Party chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz took charge of the Democratic National Committee in May. In 1992, at age 26, she became the youngest woman ever elected to the Florida House. In 2004, she became the first Jewish congress-woman elected from her state. She was the guest speaker at the May 26 Monitor breakfast in Washington, D.C.

Whether President Obama permanently damaged his standing with Israel's supporters by suggesting peace negotiations be based on Israel's 1967 borders with adjustments:

"To suggest that the president did significant damage to his support in the Jewish community is a gross overstatement."

RELATED: President Obama in Afghanistan

Partisan elements in Middle East policy:

"We need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue.... Unfortunately, I think there are organizations that claim to be pro-Israel that are partisan first and pro-Israel second.... The way the Republican Jewish Coalition has conducted itself is they put their Republicanism in front of their pro-Israel stance."

youtube

Whether the US withdrawal from Afghanistan will be fast and deep enough to satisfy the left wing of the Democratic Party:

"I am not concerned at all.... If you asked constituents like mine if they would like to see us get out of Afghanistan, they would say yes.... So far, I have seen the voters being willing to give his [Mr. Obama's] plan an opportunity to work.... I don't see any indication that [the president] would draw a primary challenge over it."

The Republican Party's approach to women:

"Their third most important priority, by indication of it being HR3, was getting rid of ... Planned Parenthood funding [and] redefining rape so that you could not get access to an abortion paid with federal funds unless you were forcibly raped, so statutory rape did not count, date rape didn't count.... So if you look on balance at their entire record, their record is antiwoman. Their record is a war on women, and it is a priority for them."

Democratic support for the auto industry:

"You've got the Big Three automakers who are profitable for the first time since 2004 ... and the loans being paid back by Chrysler, by GM.... If it were up to the candidates running for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars. They would have let the automobile industry in America go down the tubes."

Made in America:

"We need to focus on making it in America again. And there are multiple meanings to that. [Possible GOP presidential candidates] Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman ... I am concerned about their commitment to American exceptionalism."

RECOMMENDED: Election 101: Tim Pawlenty as 'everyman's' candidate? Ten points about who he is.

youtube

View the original article here