When I listen to the news -- or perhaps just when I listen to really bad or shameless reporting -- I often find myself asking: "Why is this relevant today? What makes this newsworthy?"
This morning, while driving, I was amused to hear, not once but twice on NPR, a Juan Williams report about Kansas: A conservative (by a small margin) state has a Democratic governor!
Stop the presses!
Of course, there are also "Democratic" states (Wisconsin, for example) which went for Kerry which also have Republican governors, but, for some odd reason, that topic doesn't seem to have been interesting to NPR. So what sets this situation apart?
Did some big event happen in Kansas recently? Something that will impact the world? Something newsworthy that people all around the US, driving to work, must stop everything and listen carefully to the shocking news that a state which voted for Bush might have a Democratic governor?
Nope.
Except this: The Democratic Party lately has, apparently, decided the way to attack the Republican Party is to try to split it by playing up differences between "social" and "fiscal" conservatives. And -- amazingly! (what a fantastic co-incidence for the Democrats!) -- NPR just happens to being doing a story which follows that exact same narrative!
Wow! What are the odds?
By another startling co-incidence, the first four minutes of the story were entirely controlled by the narrative of liberal and Democratic voices saying the same thing: First we heard the Democratic governor, saying Republicans there were divided. Then we hear Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" (a partisan whose book expresses shock that anyone should ever vote for a Republican) say the same thing, and go further, to tell us how much Republicans in Kansas all hate each other, and how deeply divided they are about social issues. Then, for balance, we're treated to -- a local NPR affiliate reporter! -- who -- get this! -- says the exact same thing.
Only then do we hear what Republicans have to say -- well, not quite. We hear an eight-second soundbite from a single Republican office holder, in which can hear the reporter in the background prompting him to frame his answer so it will fit into the narrative.
Was there any possibility this entire narrative was wrong? Overbroad? Generalized? Was there another side to this story? Might the Republican have said something, somewhere in the many minutes of the interview outside those eight seconds, which hinted that there was also some strong areas of unity in the Republican Party? Was it even worth mentioning that Republicans were at least unified enough to control the rest of the state?
No, surely not. Impossible! On NPR, we can learn there is only one side of the story. Or, if there are two sides -- they are two different angles on the liberal side.
For example, there was a recent NPR report on CAFTA -- the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement. All the voices in the report, save one, implied it was a bad idea because it would destroy American jobs. For "balance", they included one voice which said that it was good because it was reduce free trade with China, which is, of course, even worse. Was anyone allowed to express the opinion that perhaps free trade helps the American economy, or creates more jobs than it costs?
Hahahaha! What, are you kidding? This is NPR!
So, what of the topic at hand?
Are Republicans all "hating" each other, and at each other's throats -- as Democratic party operatives would like it to be -- and as media hand-maidens like NPR apparently are trying to make true through their reporting?
One idea which, in my opinion, doesn't much hold water is this hopeful idea that there are "fiscal conservatives" and "social conservatives". Of course, in some small sense, this is true. But, in my experience, most conservatives I know are both socially and fiscally conservative.
Consider: Gay marriage, for example, had wide opposition. In states which were close to 50/50 Bush/Kerry -- and even blue states like California -- measures oppoing gay marriage received huge support. When a 50/50 state goes 60% or 78% against gay marriage, that suggests that nearly all the conservatives agreed, and that it was, in fact, Democrats, not Republicans, who had been deeply divided by their party's radical stances on social issues.
Similarly, when we hear that 70% of people polled support some reasonable restrictions on abortion, and 30% don't, that suggests that it is the Democratic Party which is going to be the most divided about the issue.
Am I a social conservative? Of course. Am I fiscally conservative? Indeed. What if I had a candidate who I only agreed with, say, 80%? Would I support them? Typically. Since I'm a small-government conservative, most my social stances line up nicely with my fiscal stances, since mostly I want government out of things -- including mandating who must provide abortions, and giving large corporations (such as Planned Parenthood) subsidies and special control and input into that whole process. I believe in more local control over government, and less centralization. I believe in encouraging people to, if possible, find alternatives to state-run solutions.
All these things tend to make cultural clashes devolve into regional issues, and allow people to make choices by allowing people with similar views -- right, left, or whatever -- to make, influence, (and suffer under) governments which are more to their liking.
And when the majority (statewide, or even among conservative voters) wants something I think is bad -- well, that's life. You do your best, but, after all, democracy doesn't guarantee the people the best possible government, just the one they deserve.