Understanding the GOP’s response to the scourge of Iowa, Steve King

iowa congressional disrict 2018

Just to give my non-Iowan friends a little more of an idea of the scourge that is Steve King, his congressional district, and the embarrassment he is to Iowa, here’s a map that shows where his district is and where his constituents live.

The above map shows Iowa’s four congressional districts, its four congressional representatives (three Democrats and one Republican), and the 15 most populous cities in Iowa–the 15 cities with populations of at least 30,000 residents.

Keep in mind, King eeked out a 3.4% victory in an R+11 district in 2018. For comparison, districts 1 and 2 in Iowa are both rated D+1, while district 3 is rated R+1. So, Iowa’s other three congressional districts are drawn rather competitively from a partisan standpoint. King’s district 4 is R+11, meaning there are far more registered Republicans than Democrats in the 4th congressional district, which should ensure an easy Republican victory. And yet, King barely beat his Democratic opponent by 3.4% meaning he almost got beat by a Democrat in a hugely Republican district. And given his most recent openly racist remarks, this margin may become even closer in the next election.

One could argue that the reason the GOP is suddenly interested in condemning King and getting rid of him through resignation demands and/or through weakening him for a 2020 Republican primary challenge, is purely political–they want a stronger Republican option to represent the district as soon as possible so that they don’t potentially lose IA-4 to a Democrat in the 2020 general election.

Thus, it’s not necessarily about moral outrage or ethics for the GOP, it is about political preservation of Republican control of Iowa’s 4th congressional district that is driving the Republican leadership finally to speak out against King.

Advertisements

On Celebrating “Western Civilization” – a thought in response to Steve King

There are basically two ways to celebrate “western civilization,” the cultural heritage that gave rise to Europe, Russia, the Middle East, parts of North, Central, and South America, Africa, Australia, and the United States of America.

One tactic is Iowa congressman Steve King’s approach, which seeks “homogeny” by encouraging the “restoration” of “our culture and demographics,” railing against immigration arguing, “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies,” and declaring that white people have made more “contributions” to civilization than “any other subgroup of people.” This is the type of approach that causes the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, to tweet, “GOD BLESS STEVE KING!!!”

The other approach is to invest in the study of the humanities—history; social sciences; anthropology; ancient languages like Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic; modern languages like French, Spanish, Italian, German and English; music and art history—and to understand that America’s strength comes from its cultural and racial heterogeneity—from its adoption and incorporation of the best of the world’s discoveries, inventions, theories, philosophies, and contributions—into the grand experiment we call America.

To be sure, we must invest in science and education. Research and technological development allow us to solve problems and cure diseases that give us every advantage as a nation, and which bring us respect and gratitude from other nations who benefit from our capacity to afford and accomplish such innovative achievement and progress.

But we must also invest in the humanities—the study of those cultural histories from around the world that formed and shaped our own American culture.

One cannot rail against the demise of western civilization and then vote to cut funding for education and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

We must invest in art programs and music programs and language programs that allow Americans to learn America’s true history and strength—that we are a nation of immigrants and of religious and philosophical plurality. No one race defines us. No single language defines us. No sole religion defines us. No lone philosophy or political party defines us. America’s strength is in its diversity—of ideas, of beliefs, and yes, of its people—and not its religious, ideological, or racial homogeneity.

We must fund the NEH. We must fund humanities education.

That is, unless you want everyone in America to think, believe, and look like Steve King.

%d bloggers like this: