Both major Salt Lake newspapers today ran stories on just why it is Utah is, well–so republican. The stories, based on a speech by political pollster Dan Jones, noted several possible reasons why Utah is likely the reddest of the blood red republican states. From the Deseret News:
• The inability of the state’s Democrats and independents “to relate with a Democrat at the national level.” The party’s nominee for president in 1992, Bill Clinton, racked up the lowest vote in Utah. “That could be the same with Hillary” Clinton should she be nominated, he said.
• Democrats have no clear policy on immigration.
• The inability to pass a minimum wage boost, which means no increase in pay “for the little guy.” Democrats should have been able to muster the votes in Congress for an increase, he said, although they may have had to do some compromising with Republicans about other issues in order to swing some GOP votes their way.
• Democrats are labeled as pro-choice and in favor of same-sex marriage, which goes against the grain of many Utahns.
• Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “feel that Democrat policies are counter to church positions.”
From the Salt Lake Tribune:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he said, would like to see a stronger two-party system in Utah. Church leaders, including President Gordon B. Hinckley, have repeatedly said the religion is politically neutral.
Historically, though, LDS presidents did, at times, endorse candidates for the nation’s highest office. But Mormons don’t necessarily vote in step with such admonitions. In 1936, LDS president Heber J. Grant endorsed Republican Alfred Landon, but Franklin Delano Roosevelt carried Utah and won a second term.
“You have absolutely got to realize there are some fables [about Utah politics]. You don’t have to be LDS to win in Utah,” said Jones, co-owner of Dan Jones & Associates. “You’ve got two chances: slim and none. But you’ve got a chance.”
Jones said that many Utahns did fall away from the Democratic Party after it became associated with abortion rights, gay rights and other social issues that might pose conflicts for those of the LDS faith. Primarily, though, he said the blame lies with the Democratic Party itself.
Personally, I think the fiction that the democratic party and/or its political positions are somehow incompatible with the Church is probably the strongest reason–but maybe it really is that there is no clear exit strategy from Iraq–though I doubt it!
August 14, 2006 at 9:28 am
There used to be a group called ‘southern democrats’. These were people , as I understand it, that were liberal on social issues but were conservative on moral issues. For decades the democratic party had the southeastern states locked up. But not any more.
It seems to me that the democrats have in a subtle way turned their backs on folks who are conservative on moral issues but are moderate or liberal on other issues. I have felt that if the political parties were to flip/flop on the single issue of abortion that there would instantly be a lot more mormon democrats.
I also think it is not a coincidense that the last two democrats to win the presidency had southern accents and were not ashamed of their protestant backgrounds.
So, if democrats want to make ground in Utah, I would guess they would need to be at least moderate, if not conservative, on the moral issues. And if democrats want to win the presidency they need to find a way to reclaim the ‘southern democrat’, and perhaps ‘mormon democrat’.
August 14, 2006 at 9:40 am
Eric Nielson,
I think you make some very good points. I have often felt that my religion is unwelcome by Democrats.
And (sorry) I have to have a little fun with something you wrote:“There used to be a group called ’southern democrats’. These were people , as I understand it….” What else would they have been?
August 14, 2006 at 11:09 am
“Southern democrats” were defined by their opposition to civil rights legislation well into the seventies. After Nixon successfully executed his “Southern strategy” (i.e. de-Lincolnizing the Republican party) there was no further need of Southern democrats. With very few exceptions (Fulbright, maybe Ervin), I am not in the least nostalgic for them.
August 14, 2006 at 11:39 am
I may have the term wrong. I basically wanted to express that there is a group of people out there who are liberal on social issues and conservative on moral issues. I thought that was a big part of what ‘southern democrats’ was intended to describe. I may be naive and misinformed as to all that goes into that description.
I think it is this group of people that may determine who gets voted in over the next few years.